Accuracy of Additively Manufactured Dental Casts Compared with That of Virtual Scan Data Obtained with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study
Source abstract
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the time-related accuracy of additively manufactured dental casts and to compare it with scan data obtained with an intraoral scanner in vitro. Twenty-eight markers were attached to a set of dentiforms as reference model, and the distances between the markers were measured using a digital caliper. An intraoral scanner was used to obtain the virtual scan data of the reference model with a total of 30 scans per arch. The distances between markers were measured using a three-dimensional inspection software for all scans (group IOS). Scan data were additively manufactured using a 3D printer, and the distances between markers were measured as in the reference model immediately after post-polymerization (group PPIA), 1 day (group PP1D), 7 days (group PP7D), and 30 days after post-polymerization (group PP30D). The linear deviation in group IOS was 199.74 ± 11.14 μm, PPIA was 242.88 ± 49 μm, PP1D was 259.9 ± 42.59 μm, PP7D was 289.82 ± 39.74 μm, and PP30D was 315.8 ± 33.28 μm, in comparison with the reference model, with significant differences among all groups (all p < 0.05). When additively manufacturing casts from scan data to verify the quality of dental prostheses designed virtually, the prostheses should be adapted to casts manufactured within one week.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Research and COVID-19 · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, BK21 FOUR Project, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
Funding
National Research Foundation of Korea
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. Digital dentistry: The new state of the art—Is it disruptive or destructive?10.1016/j.dental.2019.08.103 ↗
2. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials10.1067/mpr.2002.128070 ↗
3. Final impressions: A review of material properties and description of a current technique
4. A comparative evaluation of accuracy of the dies affected by tray type, material viscosity, and pouring sequence of dual and single arch impressions-an in vitro study
5. Digital impressions in dentistry—Accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w ↗
6. Dimensional stability and accuracy of silicone–based impression materials using different impression techniques–a literature review10.1515/prilozi-2017-0031 ↗
7. Dimensional accuracy of hydrophilic and hydrophobic VPS impression materials using different impression techniques-an invitro study
8. Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: An in vitro study10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60141-3 ↗
9. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—A laboratory study10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006 ↗
10. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y ↗
11. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0 ↗
12. Conventional vs digital impressions: Acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients10.2174/1874210601812010118 ↗
13. Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.019 ↗
14. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.012 ↗
15. Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology?10.11607/ijp.5117 ↗
16. Additive technology: Update on current materials and applications in dentistry10.1111/jopr.12510 ↗
17. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245 ↗
18. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.008 ↗
19. 3D printing in dentistry10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914 ↗
20. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011 ↗
21. Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials10.1067/mpr.2001.112797 ↗
22. Marginal and internal fit of provisional crowns fabricated using 3D printing technology10.3233/THC-191964 ↗
23. Study of shrinkage strains in a stereolithography cured acrylic photopolymer resin10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00028-1 ↗
24. Mechanics of shape distortion of DLP 3D printed structures during UV post-curing10.1039/C9SM00725C ↗
25. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025 ↗
26. Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up10.1111/cid.12781 ↗
27. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques10.1111/jopr.12764 ↗
28. Accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of resin, plaster, digital and printed study-models10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000016 ↗
29. Accuracy of digital light processing printing of 3-dimensional dental models10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.012 ↗
30. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study10.2319/071117-460.1 ↗
31. Evaluating the effect of ambient and scanning lights on the trueness of the intraoral scanner10.1111/jopr.13341 ↗
32. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner10.1111/jopr.13135 ↗
33. Park, G.-S., Kim, S.-K., Heo, S.-J., Koak, J.-Y., and Seo, D.-G. (2019). Effects of printing parameters on the fit of implant-supported 3D printing resin prosthetics. Materials, 12.10.3390/ma12162533 ↗
34. Influences of build angle on the accuracy, printing time, and material consumption of additively manufactured surgical templates10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.012 ↗
35. Accuracy of cad/cam-fabricated bite splints: Milling vs 3D printing10.1007/s00784-020-03329-x ↗
36. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: A comparative study10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70234-8 ↗
37. Complete 3-D reconstruction of dental cast shape using perceptual grouping10.1109/42.959306 ↗
38. Acquisition of 3-dimensional shapes from images10.1067/mod.2001.115459 ↗
39. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models10.1093/ortho/30.3.219 ↗
40. Joda, T., Matthisson, L., and Zitzmann, N.U. (2020). Impact of aging on the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models: An in vitro investigation. J. Clin. Med., 9.10.3390/jcm9051436 ↗
41. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: An in vitro study10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60061-X ↗
42. A comparison between customized clear and removable orthodontic appliances manufactured using RP and CNC techniques10.1016/j.dental.2012.10.011 ↗
43. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035 ↗
44. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007 ↗
45. Gan, N., Xiong, Y., and Jiao, T. (2016). Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0158800 ↗
46. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques10.11607/ijp.5643 ↗
47. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: A systematic review10.1093/ejo/cjw033 ↗
48. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing
49. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems—An in vitro study10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001 ↗