Doctoral student, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Center for Dental and Craniofacial Sciences (CC3), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jan;125(1):103-110. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.011. Epub 2020 Feb 13.
Reliable studies comparing the accuracy of complete-arch casts from 3D printers are scarce.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy of casts printed by using various extrusion- and photopolymerization-based printers.
A master file was sent to 5 printer manufacturers and distributors to print 37 identical casts. This file consisted of a standardized data set of a maxillary cast in standard tessellation language (STL) format comprising 5 reference points for the measurement of 3 distances that served as reference for all measurements: intermolar width (IMW), intercanine width (ICW), and dental arch length (AL). The digital measurement of the master file obtained by using a surveying software program (Convince Premium 2012) was used as the control. Two extrusion-based (M2 and Ultimaker 2+) and 3 photopolymerization-based printers (Form 2, Asiga MAX UV, and myrev140) were compared. The casts were measured by using a multisensory coordinate measuring machine (O-Inspect 422). The values were then compared with those of the master file. The Mann-Whitney U test and Levene tests were used to determine significant differences in the trueness and precision (accuracy) of the measured distances.
The deviations from the master file at all 3 distances for the included printers ranged between 12 μm and 240 μm (trueness), with an interquartile range (IQR) between 17 μm and 388 μm (precision). Asiga MAX UV displayed the highest accuracy, considering all the distances, and Ultimaker 2+ demonstrated comparable accuracy for shorter distances (IMW and ICW). Although myrev140 operated with high precision, it displayed high deviations from the master file. Similarly, although Form 2 exhibited high IQR, it did not deviate significantly from the master file in the longest range (AL). M2 performed consistently.
Both extrusion-based and photopolymerization-based printers were accurate. In general, inexpensive printers were no less accurate than more expensive ones.
可靠的研究比较了 3D 打印机制作全弓模型的准确性，目前相关研究很少。
本体外研究的目的是调查基于挤出和光聚合的各种打印机打印的模型的准确性。
将一个主文件发送给 5 个打印机制造商和分销商，以打印 37 个相同的模型。该文件由一个上颌模型的标准数据集组成，以 STL 格式表示，包含 5 个参考点，用于测量 3 个距离，这些距离作为所有测量的参考：磨牙间宽度（IMW）、尖牙间宽度（ICW）和牙弓长度（AL）。使用测量软件程序（Convince Premium 2012）对主文件进行数字测量，作为对照。比较了 2 种基于挤出的（M2 和 Ultimaker 2+）和 3 种基于光聚合的打印机（Form 2、Asiga MAX UV 和 myrev140）。使用多传感器坐标测量机（O-Inspect 422）测量模型。然后将这些值与主文件进行比较。使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验和莱文检验来确定测量距离的准确性和精度（准确性）方面的显著差异。
在所有 3 个距离上，纳入研究的打印机与主文件的偏差范围在 12 μm 到 240 μm 之间（准确性），IQR 在 17 μm 到 388 μm 之间（精度）。考虑到所有距离，Asiga MAX UV 的准确性最高，Ultimaker 2+ 对较短的距离（IMW 和 ICW）表现出相似的准确性。尽管 myrev140 具有高精度，但与主文件相比，其偏差较大。同样，尽管 Form 2 显示出较高的 IQR，但在最长距离（AL）上与主文件的偏差并不显著。M2 的性能一直很稳定。
基于挤出和光聚合的打印机都具有准确性。一般来说，价格低廉的打印机与价格较高的打印机一样准确。
