Department of Prosthodontics, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, PR China.
Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN.
J Prosthodont. 2021 Oct;30(8):684-689. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13330. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
To compare the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed mandibular complete dentures with different build orientations.
A mandibular complete denture was digitized as a virtual reference file. The reference file was 3D-printed at the 0°, 45°, and 90° build orientations with a MultiJet 3D printer (Projet MJP 3600 Dental, 3D systems, Rock Hill, SC). A total of 27 complete dentures were 3D-printed with 9 samples for each orientation. All printed dentures were digitized and separated into teeth, denture extension and intaglio test surfaces. The dimensional accuracy (in root mean square, RMS) was evaluated by comparing whole denture and 3 test surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Post-Hoc all pairs Bonferroni test were used to determine statistical differences (α = 0.05).
For the dimensional accuracy on whole denture, the 45° build orientation group showed the smallest RMS (0.170 ± 0.043 mm) than those of the 0° build orientation group (0.185 ± 0.060 mm, p < 0.001) and 90° build orientation group (0.183 ± 0.044 mm, p < 0.001). For the dimensional accuracy on the teeth, denture extension and intaglio test surfaces, the 45° build orientation group also show the smallest RMS values (0.140 ± 0.044 mm at teeth surface, 0.176 ± 0.058 mm at denture extension and 0.207 ± 0.006 mm at intaglio surface). The 0°and 90° build orientation groups had similar accuracy at the teeth (0.149 ± 0.056 mm versus 0.154 ± 0.056 mm, p = 0.164) and denture extension surfaces (0.200 ±0.025 mm vs 0.196 ± 0.013 mm, p = 1.000). However, 0° build orientation group (0.228 ± 0.010 mm) has significantly higher RMS values then those of 90° build orientation group (0.218 ± 0.057 mm) in the intaglio surface (p = 0.032). The teeth surfaces were most accurate in each build orientation groups, while the intaglio surfaces were least accurate.
The build orientation affected the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed mandibular complete dentures, and the 45° build orientation resulted in the most accurate 3D-printed denture from a MultiJet 3D printer.
比较不同构建方向的 3D 打印下颌全口义齿的尺寸精度。
数字化下颌全口义齿作为虚拟参考文件。参考文件使用 MultiJet 3D 打印机(Projet MJP 3600 Dental,3D systems,Rock Hill,SC)以 0°、45°和 90°的构建方向进行 3D 打印。总共打印了 27 个全口义齿,每个方向有 9 个样本。所有打印的义齿均进行数字化并分为牙齿、义齿延伸和凹面测试面。通过将整个义齿和 3 个测试面与参考文件进行比较,评估尺寸精度(均方根,RMS)。使用单向方差分析(ANOVA)和事后所有成对 Bonferroni 检验来确定统计学差异(α=0.05)。
对于整个义齿的尺寸精度,45°构建方向组的 RMS(0.170±0.043mm)最小,明显低于 0°构建方向组(0.185±0.060mm,p<0.001)和 90°构建方向组(0.183±0.044mm,p<0.001)。对于牙齿、义齿延伸和凹面测试面的尺寸精度,45°构建方向组也显示出最小的 RMS 值(牙齿表面为 0.140±0.044mm,义齿延伸表面为 0.176±0.058mm,凹面表面为 0.207±0.006mm)。0°和 90°构建方向组在牙齿(0.149±0.056mm 与 0.154±0.056mm,p=0.164)和义齿延伸面(0.200±0.025mm 与 0.196±0.013mm,p=1.000)上具有相似的精度。然而,0°构建方向组(0.228±0.010mm)在凹面表面上的 RMS 值明显高于 90°构建方向组(0.218±0.057mm)(p=0.032)。在每个构建方向组中,牙齿表面的精度最高,而凹面表面的精度最低。
构建方向会影响 3D 打印下颌全口义齿的尺寸精度,而 MultiJet 3D 打印机的 45°构建方向会产生最精确的 3D 打印义齿。