Accuracy of Conventional and 3D-Printed Casts for Partial Fixed Prostheses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of conventional and 3D-printed casts using five different 3D printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the control group (CG group, n = 5), five conventional impressions using light- and heavy-body polyvinyl siloxane were obtained from the master model, resulting in five stone models. In the test groups, five different scans were performed by a well-trained and experienced clinician using a TRIOS intraoral scanner. All data were exported in STL file format, processed, and sent to five 3D printers. Five casts were manufactured in each printer group: SG (CARES P20, Straumann); FG (Form 2, Formlabs); WG (Duplicator 7, Wanhao); ZG (Zenith D, Zenith); and MG (Moonray S100, Moonray). Measurements of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the casts obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions and 3D-printing methods were accomplished using a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control). RESULTS: The FG group showed the lowest values for trueness (indicating a value closer to real dimensions), which were similar to the SG group only (P > .05). MG, WG, and ZG groups presented higher values and were similar compared to each other. Data on precision demonstrated that all 3D-printed groups showed lower values for precision (smaller deviation) when compared to the CG. CONCLUSIONS: The trueness depends on the chosen 3D printer. All of the tested 3D printers were more precise than cast models obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions.

Accuracy of conventional and 3D printed casts for partial fixed prosthesis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of conventional and 3D-printed casts using five different 3D printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the control group (CG group, n = 5), five conventional impressions using light- and heavy-body polyvinyl siloxane were obtained from the master model, resulting in five stone models. In the test groups, five different scans were performed by a well-trained and experienced clinician using a TRIOS intraoral scanner. All data were exported as an STL file format, processed, and sent to five 3D printers. Five casts were manufactured in each group: SG (CARES P20, Straumann); FG (Form 2, Formlabs); WG (Duplicator 7, Wanhao); ZG (Zenith D, Zenith); and MG (Moonray S100, Moonray). Measurements of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the casts obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions and 3D-printing methods were accomplished using a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control). RESULTS: The FG group showed the lowest values for trueness (closer to real dimensions), which were similar to the SG group only (P > .05). Groups MG, WG, and ZG presented higher values and were similar compared to each other. Data on precision demonstrated that all 3D-printed groups showed lower values for precision (smaller deviation) when compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: The trueness depends on the chosen 3D printer. All of the tested 3D printers were more precise than cast models obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions.

Digital and Analog Analysis of Occlusion in Conventional and Implant-Retained Complete Dentures: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To digitally evaluate the static and dynamic occlusion of patients treated with both removable conventional complete dentures (CCDs) and implant-retained removable overdentures (IODs) and to correlate two different methods of occlusal analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven totally edentulous patients were treated with bimaxillary CCDs. Later, mandibular CCDs were replaced by IODs retained by either two or four implants. The distribution of the occlusal contacts in static and dynamic occlusion was compared by means of the digital method (DM; T-Scan III) and the analog method (AM; articulating paper). Scores 0, 1, and 2 were assigned for inadequate, satisfactory, and adequate distribution of the occlusal contacts, respectively. The frequencies of scores were compared in relation to the types of denture by means of Fisher exact test (P < .05). The correlation between methods was assessed by means of the kappa agreement coefficient (κ) and the correlation coefficient phi (φ) (P < .05). RESULTS: Significant differences between CCDs and IODs were found in the right lateral mandibular movement (DM, P = .024; AM, P = .008), as well as in the left lateral mandibular movement (DM, P = .035). The methods of analysis of the occlusion showed a moderate agreement (κ = 0.604; P < .001) and a moderate correlation (φ = 0.605; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The digital and analog methods showed a significant agreement and moderate correlation, irrespective of the type of complete denture. The T-Scan III digital system seems to be a consistent and reproducible method to analyze occlusion.