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 1
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.
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.
Highlights
Mohammad Amin Bafandeh (Google Scholar)
Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh (Google Scholar)
Keywords
- Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radio. 2014. 28: 794-807.
- Chu SJ, Trushkowsky RD, Paravina RD. Dental color matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and research aspects. J Dent. 2010; 38 Suppl 2: e2-e16.
- Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent. 2017; 26: 929-935.
- Mutwalli H, Braian M, Mahmood D, Larsson C. Trueness and Precision of three-dimensional digitizing intraoral devices. Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 5189761.
- Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1430-1435.
- Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital VS. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115.
- Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10.
- Lee SJ, Macarthur RX 4th, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013. 110: 420-423.
- Besimo C, Jeger C, Guggenheim R. Marginal adaptation of titanium frameworks produced by CAD/CAM techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10: 541-546.
- Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2008; 29: 494-496, 498-505.
- Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011; 55: 559-570.
- Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics–Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng Opt Laser Eng. 2014; 54: 203-221.
- Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28: 44-56.
- Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-128.
- Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 2013; 26: 115-120.
- Horn TJ, Harrysson OL. Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and selected applications. Sci Prog. 2012; 95: 255-82.
- Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J. 2015; 219: 521-529.
- González de Villaumbrosia P, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 543-550.
- Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362.
- Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps AI. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 811-820.
- Bernauer SA, Müller J, Zitzmann NU, Joda T. Influence of preparation design, marginal gingiva location, and tooth morphology on the accuracy of digital impressions for full-crown restorations: an in vitro investigation. J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 3984.
- Schmidt A, Benedickt C, Schlenz M, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of four different intraoral scanners according to different preparation geometries. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 756-762.
- Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Alshawaf B, Kang K, Finkelman M, Chronopoulos V, et al. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 589-593.
- Nestler N, Wesemann C, Spies BC, Beuer F, Bumann A. Dimensional accuracy of extrusion- and photopolymerization-based 3D printers: In vitro study comparing printed casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 103-101.
- Ishida Y, Miyasaka T. Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J 2016; 35: 250-256.
- Etemad-Shahidi Y, Qallandar OB, Evenden J, Alifui- Segbaya F, Ahmed KE. Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 3357.
- Nemeth A, Vitai V, Czumbel ML, Szabo B, Varga G, Keremi B, et al. Clear guidance to select the most accurate technologies for 3D printing dental models–A net work meta-analysis. J Dent. 2023; 134: 104532.
- l'Alzit FR, Cade R, Naveau A, Babilotte J, Meglioli M, Catros S. Accuracy of commercial 3D printers for the fabrication of surgical guides in dental implantology. J Dentistry. 2022; 117: 103909.
- Yousef H, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Morton D, Lin WS. Effect of additive manufacturing process and storage condition on the dimensional accuracy and stability of 3D-p-rinted dental casts. J Prosth Dent. 2022; 128: 1041-1046.
- Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: challenges amongexpanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 54-64.
- Lai YC, Yang CC, Levon JA, Chu TG, Morton D, Lin WS. The effects of additive manufacturing technologies and finish line designs on the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D-printed dies. J Prosthodont. 2023; 32: 519-526.
- Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K, et al. A review of 3D printing in dentistry: Technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning. 2021; 2021: 9950131.
)