Do low-cost 3-dimensional printers produce suitable dental models?

INTRODUCTION

When choosing a 3-dimensional printer for dental models, the cost-benefit ratio should be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, precision, cost, and time taken to prepare and print using different low-cost techniques (2 digital light processing [DLP] and 1 fused filament fabrication [FFF] printer) compared with the reference proven to be clinically accepted (PolyJet).

METHODS

For this purpose, the upper and lower virtual models of 5 patients were printed using: (1) DLP printer Moonray, (2) DLP printer Anycubic, (3) DLP printer Moonray with Anycubic resin, (4) Filament printer UpMini 2 (FFF), and (5) Polyjet printer Objet Eden500V. One of the virtual models was also printed 4 consecutive times on each printer to allow consistency assessment. Afterward, the 14 printed resin models were scanned, and their accuracy was evaluated by model superimposition using Geomagic Qualify software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC). A digital caliper was also used to obtain linear measurements. All measurements were carried out by a calibrated examiner.

RESULTS

The results showed that all printers produced similar results, although Moonray with Anycubic resin showed loss of accuracy and Anycubic showed inconsistent vertical dimensions. The printing cost and time consumed from each pair of models were calculated for the overall printing process, analyzing which would have the best cost-benefit ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Polyjet printing was considered the fastest method but with the highest cost. FFF printing was the lowest printing and input cost but was considerably more time-consuming. There was a balance in both DLP printers, and they were considered the best cost-benefit ratio for small independent dental offices.