Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 1/2012

01-03-2012 | Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques

Authors: K. Murugesan, Ponsekar Abraham Anandapandian, Sumeet Kumar Sharma, M. Vasantha Kumar

Published in: The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three prototype models with a 3D STL (standard template library) image. In this study the STL file was used to produce three different rapid prototype models namely; model 1—fused deposition model (FDM) using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), model 2—Polyjet using a clear resin and model 3—a 3 dimensional printing using a composite material. Measurements were made at various anatomical points. For surface detail reproductions the models were subjected to scanning electron microscopy analysis. The dimensions of the model created by Polyjet were closest to the 3D STL virtual image followed by the 3DP model and FDM. SEM analysis showed uniform smooth surface on Polyjet model with adequate surface details.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Choi (2002) Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. Int J Oral Maxillo Surg 31:23CrossRef Choi (2002) Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. Int J Oral Maxillo Surg 31:23CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ibrahim D et al (2008) Dimensional accuracy of selective laser sintering and three dimensional printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Cranio Maxil Surg 36:443CrossRef Ibrahim D et al (2008) Dimensional accuracy of selective laser sintering and three dimensional printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Cranio Maxil Surg 36:443CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Pham et al (1998) A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:1257CrossRef Pham et al (1998) A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:1257CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dickens PM (1995) Research development in rapid prototyping. J Eng Manuf Part B 209:261–266CrossRef Dickens PM (1995) Research development in rapid prototyping. J Eng Manuf Part B 209:261–266CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Faber et al (2006) Rapid prototyping as a tool for diagnosis and treatment planning for maxillary canine impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:583–589PubMedCrossRef Faber et al (2006) Rapid prototyping as a tool for diagnosis and treatment planning for maxillary canine impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:583–589PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques
Authors
K. Murugesan
Ponsekar Abraham Anandapandian
Sumeet Kumar Sharma
M. Vasantha Kumar
Publication date
01-03-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0972-4052
Electronic ISSN: 1998-4057
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 1/2012 Go to the issue