Kim Soo-Yeon, Shin Yoo-Seok, Jung Hwi-Dong, Hwang Chung-Ju, Baik Hyoung-Seon, Cha Jung-Yul
Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Cranio-Facial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jan;153(1):144-153. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025.
In this study, we assessed the precision and trueness of dental models printed with 3-dimensional (3D) printers via different printing techniques.
Digital reference models were printed 5 times using stereolithography apparatus (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), fused filament fabrication (FFF), and the PolyJet technique. The 3D printed models were scanned and evaluated for tooth, arch, and occlusion measurements. Precision and trueness were analyzed with root mean squares (RMS) for the differences in each measurement. Differences in measurement variables among the 3D printing techniques were analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05).
Except in trueness of occlusion measurements, there were significant differences in all measurements among the 4 techniques (P <0.001). For overall tooth measurements, the DLP (76 ± 14 μm) and PolyJet (68 ± 9 μm) techniques exhibited significantly different mean RMS values of precision than the SLA (88 ± 14 μm) and FFF (99 ± 14 μm) techniques (P <0.05). For overall arch measurements, the SLA (176 ± 73 μm) had significantly different RMS values than the DLP (74 ± 34 μm), FFF (89 ± 34 μm), and PolyJet (69 ± 18 μm) techniques (P <0.05). For overall occlusion measurements, the FFF (170 ± 55 μm) exhibited significantly different RMS values than the SLA (94 ± 33 μm), DLP (120 ± 28 μm), and PolyJet (96 ± 33 μm) techniques (P <0.05). There were significant differences in mean RMS values of trueness of overall tooth measurements among all 4 techniques: SLA (107 ± 11 μm), DLP (143 ± 8 μm), FFF (188 ± 14 μm), and PolyJet (78 ± 9 μm) (P <0.05). For overall arch measurements, the SLA (141 ± 35 μm) and PolyJet (86 ± 17 μm) techniques exhibited significantly different mean RMS values of trueness than DLP (469 ± 49 μm) and FFF (409 ± 36 μm) (P <0.05).
The 3D printing techniques showed significant differences in precision of all measurements and in trueness of tooth and arch measurements. The PolyJet and DLP techniques were more precise than the FFF and SLA techniques, with the PolyJet technique having the highest accuracy.
在本研究中，我们评估了通过不同打印技术用三维（3D）打印机打印的牙科模型的精度和准确性。
使用立体光刻设备（SLA）、数字光处理（DLP）、熔融长丝制造（FFF）和PolyJet技术将数字参考模型打印5次。对3D打印模型进行扫描，并对牙齿、牙弓和咬合测量进行评估。用均方根（RMS）分析每次测量差异的精度和准确性。通过单因素方差分析（α = 0.05）分析3D打印技术之间测量变量的差异。
除咬合测量的准确性外，4种技术在所有测量中均存在显著差异（P <0.001）。对于整体牙齿测量，DLP（76±14μm）和PolyJet（68±9μm）技术的平均RMS精度值与SLA（88±14μm）和FFF（99±14μm）技术相比有显著差异（P <0.05）。对于整体牙弓测量，SLA（176±73μm）的RMS值与DLP（74±34μm）、FFF（89±34μm）和PolyJet（69±18μm）技术有显著差异（P <0.05）。对于整体咬合测量，FFF（170±55μm）的RMS值与SLA（94±33μm）、DLP（120±28μm）和PolyJet（96±33μm）技术有显著差异（P <0.05）。所有4种技术在整体牙齿测量准确性的平均RMS值上存在显著差异：SLA（107±11μm）、DLP（143±8μm）、FFF（188±14μm）和PolyJet（78±9μm）（P <0.05）。对于整体牙弓测量，SLA（141±35μm）和PolyJet（86±17μm）技术的平均RMS准确性值与DLP（469±49μm）和FFF（409±36μm）有显著差异（P <0.05）。
3D打印技术在所有测量的精度以及牙齿和牙弓测量的准确性方面存在显著差异。PolyJet和DLP技术比FFF和SLA技术更精确，其中PolyJet技术的精度最高。
