American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2019
Evaluation of three-dimensional printed virtual setups.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
González Guzmán Juan Francisco, Teramoto Ohara Alberto
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Digital setups are reliable and show numerous benefits to the orthodontic practice. Fused deposition modeling can build physical replicas of these setup models. The purpose of this study was to compare 3-dimensional printed and conventional setups.
METHODS: Ten sets of pretreatment plaster models were randomly selected and scanned to obtain digital replicas. Conventional and virtual setups were constructed based on the treatment plan, anchorage needs, and extraction pattern. The same arch form was used for corresponding conventional and digital setups by replicating the archwire on the screen with the use of the 1:1 real scaling tool in the Orthoanalyzer software (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Printed and manual setups were measured to compare dimensional accuracy and inter- and intra-arch characteristics. The differences were assessed by means of paired t test analyses.
RESULTS: The majority of measurements showed higher values on the manual setup models. Statistically significant differences were found in 6 dimensional-accuracy measurements (from -0.04 to 0.32 mm). One intra-arch (from 0.01 to 1.55 mm) and all inter-arch (from 0.87 to 0.95 mm) characteristics showed statistically significant differences. Maxillary models exhibited greater variations than mandibular setup models.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional setups printed with fused deposition modeling are not comparable to conventional setups. The digital setup process should be managed with care to avoid tooth collision and overcome software limitations.
METHODS: Ten sets of pretreatment plaster models were randomly selected and scanned to obtain digital replicas. Conventional and virtual setups were constructed based on the treatment plan, anchorage needs, and extraction pattern. The same arch form was used for corresponding conventional and digital setups by replicating the archwire on the screen with the use of the 1:1 real scaling tool in the Orthoanalyzer software (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Printed and manual setups were measured to compare dimensional accuracy and inter- and intra-arch characteristics. The differences were assessed by means of paired t test analyses.
RESULTS: The majority of measurements showed higher values on the manual setup models. Statistically significant differences were found in 6 dimensional-accuracy measurements (from -0.04 to 0.32 mm). One intra-arch (from 0.01 to 1.55 mm) and all inter-arch (from 0.87 to 0.95 mm) characteristics showed statistically significant differences. Maxillary models exhibited greater variations than mandibular setup models.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional setups printed with fused deposition modeling are not comparable to conventional setups. The digital setup process should be managed with care to avoid tooth collision and overcome software limitations.