Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- mohammad Amin Bafandeh 1
- Mohammad Alihemmati 1
- Ali Jamali Ghomi 1
- Maryam Jahangiri 2
- Yasaman Sherafatmand 3
- Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh 4
1 Dept. of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
3 PhD Candidate of Dental Biomaterials, Dept. of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4 Full professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Background: The adoption of three-dimensional (3D) printing in dentistry for prosthetic workflows is increasing. A crucial step in the indirect fabrication of laminate veneers involves creating accurate master casts from digital impressions. However, there is limited information available regarding the accuracy of dental 3D printers in fabricating these master casts when different tooth preparation designs for laminate veneers are employed.
Purpose: This study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of dental 3D printers in fabricating master casts for laminate veneers featuring three different incisal edge preparation designs (butt-joint, window, and palatal extension).
Materials and Method: This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on three dental models made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) with central incisor and canine teeth with three incisal preparation designs of window, butt-joint, and palatal extension for fabrication of laminate veneers. The models were scanned by the same laboratory scanner, and the standard tessellation language (STL) files were printed by four printers: Prodent (material jetting [MJ]), Asiga (digital light processing [DLP]), Hunter (DLP), and Luminous (light-emitting diode [LED]), 30 times. A total of 120 printed models were scanned again, and their scan files in STL format were compared with the reference model file to assess the trueness and precision of the printers. Data were analyzed using paired and independent t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey test (α= 0.05).
Results: Asiga printer showed significantly higher trueness and precision than other printers (p< 0.05). No significant difference was found among other printers in trueness or precision (p> 0.05). The precision of window preparation design was significantly lower than other preparation designs (p< 0.05). No significant difference was found among other preparation designs in precision (p> 0.05). The difference in trueness was not significant among the preparation designs (p> 0.05).
Conclusion: Asiga printer showed significantly higher trueness and precision than other tested printers for fabrication of laminate veneers. Also, window preparation of the incisal edge resulted in significantly lower precision than butt-joint and palatal extension designs.
Keywords
)