Naeem Owais A, Bencharit Sompop, Yang Il-Hyung, Stilianoudakis Spiro Christos, Carrico Caroline, Tüfekçi Eser
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Apr;161(4):582-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.03.016.
This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the precision, trueness, and accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) printed clear orthodontic retainers fabricated using printer systems with different printing technologies.
Retainers (n = 15) were 3D printed using 4 different printers: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), continuous DLP, and polyjet photopolymer (PPP) printers. Printed retainers were transformed into a digital image through a cone-beam computed tomography scan and compared with the original image using 3D superimposition analysis software. At previously chosen landmarks (R6, L6, R3, L3, R1, and L1), intaglio surfaces of the retainers were compared to that of the reference model. The intercanine and the intermolar width measurements were also assessed. A discrepancy of up to 0.25 mm between the printed retainer and the reference retainer intaglio surfaces indicated accuracy and clinical acceptability. Precision and trueness were also determined. Root mean square and percent of points within the tolerance level were calculated for precision and trueness for each retainer. Statistical significance was set at P <0.05.
Interrater correlation coefficient indicated good agreement. Statistically significant differences were found between printer types among the 6 landmarks and the arch width measurements. When evaluating tolerance level and root mean square, statistically significant differences in median precision and trueness among each printer type were found.
Retainers fabricated by SLA, DLP, continuous DLP, and PPP technologies were shown to be clinically acceptable and accurate compared to the standard reference file. Based on both high precision and trueness, SLA and PPP printers yielded the most accurate retainers.
本研究旨在评估使用具有不同打印技术的打印机系统制造的三维（3D）打印透明正畸保持器在精度、准确性和精确度方面的差异。
使用4种不同的打印机3D打印保持器（n = 15）：立体光刻（SLA）、数字光处理（DLP）、连续DLP和聚喷射光聚合物（PPP）打印机。通过锥形束计算机断层扫描将打印的保持器转换为数字图像，并使用3D叠加分析软件与原始图像进行比较。在先前选定的标志点（R6、L6、R3、L3、R1和L1）处，将保持器的内表面与参考模型的内表面进行比较。还评估了尖牙间和磨牙间宽度测量值。打印的保持器与参考保持器内表面之间的差异高达0.25 mm表明具有准确性和临床可接受性。还确定了精度和准确性。计算每个保持器的精度和准确性的均方根和公差水平内的点百分比。统计学显著性设定为P <0.05。
评分者间相关系数表明一致性良好。在6个标志点和牙弓宽度测量值之间，不同打印机类型之间存在统计学显著差异。在评估公差水平和均方根时，发现每种打印机类型的中位精度和准确性存在统计学显著差异。
与标准参考文件相比，通过SLA、DLP、连续DLP和PPP技术制造的保持器在临床上是可接受的且准确的。基于高精度和准确性，SLA和PPP打印机产生的保持器最准确。
