Suppr超能文献

打印技术和方向对 3D 打印保持器准确性的影响。

Effect of printing technology and orientation on the accuracy of three-dimensional printed retainers.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2024 Nov 1;94(6):657-663. doi: 10.2319/120823-812.1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of printer technology and print orientation on the accuracy of directly printed retainers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Digital retainers were printed with two different printing technologies: digital light processing (DLP) and stereolithography (SLA), using two different orientations: 0° and 90°. After printing, the retainers (n = 40) were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography. The DICOM files were then converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. Comparison of the printed retainers with a master file was done by superimposition using a three-dimensional (3D) best-fit tool in Geomagic software. A ±0.25 mm tolerance was set to detect differences between the superimposed files. Statistical analysis was conducted (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, with Bonferroni correction).

RESULTS

The lowest median average deviation was observed for the DLP horizontally printed models (median, [interquartile range (IQR)] = 0.01 mm, [-0.01, 0.02]) followed by the SLA horizontally printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 0.05 mm, [0.03, 0.07]). The highest median inside the tolerance levels ratio was observed for the horizontally SLA printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.9%, [74.4, 82.4%]) followed by the horizontally DLP printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.2%, [74.5, 80.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Both technologies (DLP and SLA) showed 3D printed results compatible with orthodontic clinical needs. Printing orientation was more important than printer type regarding its accuracy. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of direct printed appliances clinically.

摘要

目的

评估打印机技术和打印方向对直接打印保持器准确性的影响。

材料和方法

使用两种不同的打印技术(数字光处理(DLP)和立体光刻(SLA))和两种不同的方向(0°和 90°)打印数字保持器。打印后,使用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)对保持器(n=40)进行扫描。然后将 DICOM 文件转换为标准三角测量语言(STL)文件。使用 Geomagic 软件中的三维(3D)最佳拟合工具通过叠加来比较打印的保持器与主文件。设置了±0.25 毫米的公差来检测叠加文件之间的差异。进行了统计分析(Kruskal-Wallis 和 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney 检验,带有 Bonferroni 校正)。

结果

水平打印的 DLP 模型的最低中位数平均偏差为 0.01 毫米(中位数,[四分位间距(IQR)] = 0.01 毫米,[-0.01,0.02]),其次是水平打印的 SLA 保持器(中位数,[IQR] = 0.05 毫米,[0.03,0.07])。水平打印的 SLA 保持器的内部公差水平比率的中位数最高(中位数,[IQR] = 78.9%,[74.4,82.4%]),其次是水平打印的 DLP 保持器(中位数,[IQR] = 78.2%,[74.5,80.7%])。

结论

两种技术(DLP 和 SLA)都显示出与正畸临床需求兼容的 3D 打印结果。就其准确性而言,打印方向比打印机类型更重要。需要进一步的研究来评估临床直接打印设备的准确性。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

8
Accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated bite splints: milling vs 3D printing.CAD/CAM 制作的咬合垫的准确性:铣削与 3D 打印。
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Dec;24(12):4607-4615. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03329-x. Epub 2020 May 21.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验