Department of Orthodontics, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Department of Orthodontics, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Jun;161(6):858-865. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.06.018.
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).
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.
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.
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.
在为牙科模型选择 3D 打印机时，应评估成本效益比。本研究的目的是评估使用不同低成本技术（2 种数字光处理[DLP]和 1 种熔融沉积成型[FFF]打印机）与经临床验证可接受的参考打印机（PolyJet）相比，在精度、精度、成本和打印准备时间方面的差异。
为此，使用以下方法打印 5 名患者的上下虚拟模型：（1）DLP 打印机 Moonray；（2）DLP 打印机 Anycubic；（3）带有 Anycubic 树脂的 DLP 打印机 Moonray；（4）FFF 打印机 UpMini 2（5）Polyjet 打印机 Objet Eden500V。每个打印机还将其中一个虚拟模型连续打印 4 次，以允许评估一致性。然后，扫描 14 个打印的树脂模型，并使用 Geomagic Qualify 软件（3D Systems，Rock Hill，SC）通过模型叠加评估其准确性。还使用数字卡尺获取线性测量值。所有测量均由经过校准的检验员进行。
结果表明，所有打印机的打印结果都相似，尽管带有 Anycubic 树脂的 Moonray 显示出精度损失，而 Anycubic 则显示出不一致的垂直尺寸。计算了从每对模型打印的总成本和时间，以分析整体打印过程中哪种方法具有最佳的成本效益比。
PolyJet 打印被认为是最快的方法，但成本最高。FFF 打印的打印和输入成本最低，但时间消耗相当长。两台 DLP 打印机之间存在平衡，它们被认为是小型独立牙科诊所的最佳成本效益比。
