Abstract
Statement of problem
Additively manufactured dental casts are gaining popularity as the digital workflow
is adopted in dentistry. However, studies on their dimensional accuracy and stability
under different storage conditions in the dental laboratory are lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effects of different additive
manufacturing processes and storage conditions on the dimensional accuracy and stability
of 3D-printed dental casts.
Material and methods
A completely dentate maxillary typodont model was digitized 10 times with a dental
laboratory laser scanner, and the standard tessellation language (STL) files were
used to manufacture 3D-printed diagnostic casts with the digital light projection
(DLP) 3D printer (Asiga MAX) and material jetting (MJ) 3D printer (ProJet 3510 DPPro).
Twenty DLP-printed and 20 MJ-printed diagnostic casts were digitized within 24 hours
of production. Subsequently, all 3D-printed diagnostic casts were stored for 3 months,
either in closed laboratory boxes or in dental laboratory open-face plastic containers
with direct exposure to full-spectrum balanced light. After 3-month storage, all 40
3D-printed casts were digitized again. All scanned files were compared with the corresponding
STL files in a surface-matching software program. The dimensional accuracy was measured
and compared by the root mean square (RMS, in μm). Repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare RMS values among the variables, and the Tukey honestly
significant difference (HSD) test was used for post hoc multiple comparisons (α=.05).
Results
The casts produced from the DLP 3D printer had a significantly higher mean ±standard
deviation RMS of 153.7 ±25.4 μm than those produced with the MJ 3D printer with RMS
of 134.1 ±16.0 μm (P<.001). The storage condition (box storage versus light exposure) did not affect the
accuracy of the DLP-printed casts (P=.615) or the MJ-printed casts (P=.999). When comparing all 3D-printed casts after 3-month storage, group DLP-3M-Lit
had the highest mean ±standard deviation RMS of 163.0 ±26.5 μm, and group MJ-3M-Box
had the lowest RMS of 132.8 ±16.9 μm. The DLP-printed casts stored under light exposure
were significantly less accurate than the MJ-printed casts stored in the box (P=.048). DLP-printed casts stored under light exposure showed significant surface color
change under visual inspection.
Conclusions
The MJ 3D printer produced more accurate 3D-printed dental casts than the DLP 3D printer.
After 3-month storage, the DLP-printed casts stored under light exposure were the
least accurate, and the MJ-printed casts stored without light exposure were the most
accurate. The surface color change of DLP-printed casts stored under light exposure
after 3-month storage was evident.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 187-191
- Digital technology in fixed implant prosthodontics.Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 178-192
- Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation.J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
- 3D printing in dentistry.Br Dent J. 2015; 219: 521-529
- Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique.Korean J Orthod. 2014; 44: 69-76
- Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 1133-1140
- Current status and applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: A literature-based review.J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019; 9: 179-185
- Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 310-315
- The language of reality.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015; 120: 281-283
- Fit of interim crowns fabricated using photopolymer-jetting 3D printing.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 208-215
- 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities.Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 54-64
- Direct inkjet printing of dental prostheses made of zirconia.J Dent Res. 2009; 88: 673-676
- 3D volume rendering and 3D printing (additive manufacturing).Dent Clin North Am. 2018; 62: 393-402
- Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 913-918
- Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 835-842
- Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 135-142
- Position accuracy of implant analogs on 3D printed polymer versus conventional dental stone casts measured using a coordinate measuring machine.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 560-567
- Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 861.e1-861.e7
- Accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 309-314
- Delayed linear dimensional changes of five high strength gypsum products used for the fabrication of definitive casts.J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108: 189-195
- Dental gypsum products.American National Standards Institute, New York2000: 244-253
- Linear setting expansion of different gypsum products.South Brazilian Dent J. 2015; 12: 61-67
- Impact of aging on the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models: An in vitro investigation.J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 1436
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 27, 2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
