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.

Cost and effectiveness of 3-dimensionally printed model using three different printing layer parameters and two resins.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: When 3-dimensional printing casts, the operator can change the type of resin and the printing layer thickness, reducing the fabrication time. However, how these parameters affect the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts by using a stereolithography (SLA) 3-dimensional printer (Forms2) with 3 different layer thickness (25, 50, and 100 µm) and 2 different resins (Gray and Cast) and by comparing the time to obtain each cast. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One master cast was scanned, and a single file was printed several times. The printed casts were then scanned by using a laboratory scanner. The standard tessellation language (STL) files provided by the laboratory scanner were superimposed and compared by using a software program (Geomagic Control; 3D Systems). The 2-way ANOVA test was used for the trueness evaluation, followed by the Tukey test to identify differences among the groups (α=.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in accuracy were found among the 3 different layers for either resin (P>.05). Printing time doubled as layer thickness decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that when printing casts, the fastest printing settings can be used without losing accuracy and that the laboratory digital workflow can be accelerated with selection of the resin and cast layer, as the type of resin and layer thickness did not influence the quality of the casts.

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.

Influence of the Prosthetic Index on Fracture Resistance of Morse Taper Dental Implants.

PURPOSE: Manufacturers have inserted a prosthetic index, an internal hexagon to guide prosthetic components inside Morse taper implants. However, it is still unclear if this mechanism could decrease the mechanical strength of Morse taper implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the prosthetic index inside Morse taper implants on fracture resistance compared with nonindexed implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven Morse taper implants, with 11.5-degree angulation of the internal conical portion, were divided into three groups: implants without the prosthetic index and solid Morse taper universal post (group 1), implants with the prosthetic index and solid Morse taper universal post (group 2), and implants and abutments with the prosthetic index (group 3). All groups were modeled for finite element stress analysis (FEA), simulating force application of a perpendicular load to the abutments. Fracture resistance (n = 10) was determined under the same condition. Dynamic loading (n = 9) was also performed. The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey test was applied (α = .05). The metallographic analysis was used to identify the fracture distribution and the microstructure of the titanium alloy. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the values of all tested groups. According to the FEA, the prosthetic index region was out of stress. The mean fracture resistances and loading test were 353.7 N and 200 N for group 1, 397.3 N and 170 N for group 2, and 372.0 N and 160 N for group 3, respectively. Metallographic analysis showed a macroscopic failure pattern just as demonstrated by FEA. CONCLUSION: The presence of the prosthetic index on Morse taper implants did not decrease its resistance to fracture for the tested implants.