Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
3D-printed zirconia orthodontic brackets: Effect of printing method on dimensional accuracy.
Tang, Zhi; Dai, Jingtao; Yu, Anlan; Li, Ping; Liu, Chufeng; Shen, Xiaoqing.
Afiliação
  • Tang Z; Department of Stomatology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Dai J; Department of Orthodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Yu A; Department of Stomatology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Li P; Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Engineering Research Center of Oral Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Liu C; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
  • Shen X; Department of Orthodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Orthod Craniofac Res ; 2024 Aug 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39169632
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

This study investigated the effect of additive manufacturing (AM) methods on the slot height dimensions and accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic brackets.

METHODS:

A 3D model of a standard Mclaughlin Bennett Trevisi bracket was used as a reference to print the ceramic bracket in a 90° orientation using two representative AM

methods:

digital light processing (DLP) and material jetting (MJ). The dimensional accuracy and slot heights were determined using a scanning electron microscope and an optical scanner. Also, all specimens were analysed using the Geomagic Control X 3D inspection software. The root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analyses were performed using an independent sample t-test.

RESULTS:

Slot height dimensions, trueness RMS, and precision RMS were statistically affected by different AM methods (p < .01). There was a significant difference between the different printing methods, with DLP meeting the tolerance requirements (mean slot height = 0.557 ± 0.018 mm) and MJ being slightly below them (mean slot height = 0.544 ± 0.021 mm). However, MJ significantly outperformed DLP in terms of accuracy. Among the two printing methods, MJ was associated with higher trueness (RMS = 0.025 ± 0.004 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.038 ± 0.005 mm).

CONCLUSIONS:

Both tested AM methods yielded clinically acceptable outcomes, with the RMS range set to ±100 µm and the slot height tolerance established at 0.549-0.569 mm. The MJ technology achieved the highest accuracy.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article