Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2022
Accuracy of Dental and Industrial 3D Printers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anadioti Eva, Kane Brittany, Zhang Yu, Bergler Michael, Mante Francis, Blatz Markus B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of three 3D printers and one milling machine with their respective polymeric materials using a simplified geometrical model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A simplified computer-aided design (CAD) model was created. The test samples were fabricated with three 3D printers: a dental desktop stereolithography (SLA) printer, an industrial SLA printer, and an industrial fused deposition modeling (FDM) printer, as well as a 5-axis milling machine. One polymer material was used per industrial printer and milling machine while two materials were used with the dental printer for a total of five study groups. Test specimens were then digitized using a laboratory scanner. The virtual outer caliper method was used to measure the linear dimensions of the digitized 3D printed and milled specimens in x-, y-, and z-axes, and compare them to the known values of the CAD model. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks followed by the Tukey's test.
RESULTS: Milled specimens were not significantly different from the CAD model in any dimension (p > 0.05). All 3D printed specimens were significantly different from the CAD model in all dimensions (p = 0.01), except the dental SLA 3D printer with one of the polymers tested (Bis-GMA) which was not significantly different in two (x and z) dimensions (p = 0.4 and p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: The milling technology tested provided greater dimensional accuracy than the selected 3D printing. Printer, printing technology, and material selection affected the accuracy of the printed model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A simplified computer-aided design (CAD) model was created. The test samples were fabricated with three 3D printers: a dental desktop stereolithography (SLA) printer, an industrial SLA printer, and an industrial fused deposition modeling (FDM) printer, as well as a 5-axis milling machine. One polymer material was used per industrial printer and milling machine while two materials were used with the dental printer for a total of five study groups. Test specimens were then digitized using a laboratory scanner. The virtual outer caliper method was used to measure the linear dimensions of the digitized 3D printed and milled specimens in x-, y-, and z-axes, and compare them to the known values of the CAD model. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks followed by the Tukey's test.
RESULTS: Milled specimens were not significantly different from the CAD model in any dimension (p > 0.05). All 3D printed specimens were significantly different from the CAD model in all dimensions (p = 0.01), except the dental SLA 3D printer with one of the polymers tested (Bis-GMA) which was not significantly different in two (x and z) dimensions (p = 0.4 and p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: The milling technology tested provided greater dimensional accuracy than the selected 3D printing. Printer, printing technology, and material selection affected the accuracy of the printed model.