| Abstrakt: |
In contemporary dentistry, several 3D printing techniques, including a stereolithography apparatus (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), liquid crystal display (LCD), and PolyJet 3D inkjet printing technology (PolyJet), are employed for model production. Despite their widespread use, there remains a paucity of the literature regarding the trueness and precision of these devices in dental applications. Existing studies comparing the accuracy of dental models manufactured by different printing technologies yield disparate conclusions regarding dental prosthesis manufacturing. This study aimed to test two null hypotheses: first, that the trueness of various new-generation 3D printers is equivalent, and second, that the trueness of printing by these printers is sufficient for achieving high-precision mastercasts in dental prosthodontics manufacturing. The research focuses on evaluating the trueness of five contemporary dental 3D printers: Anycubic Mono X 6Ks (Hongkong Anycubic Technology Co., Hongkong, China), Asiga Max (Asiga, Sydney, Australia), Creo C5 (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), Form 3B (Formlabs, Boston, MA, USA), and J5 Dentajet (Stratasys Ltd., Eden Prairie, MN, USA). The methodology employed involved the creation of a digital test object using Blender software, adhering meticulously to the dimensions outlined in ISO standard 20896-1. These dimensions were chosen to be both relevant for this study and representative of clinical scenarios. Subsequently, the test object was printed and precise measurements were conducted utilizing a metrology-type Nikon XTH225 ST Reflection target in conjunction with VGStudio MAX analysis software. The results of our investigation revealed clinically negligible deviations in ball dimensions across all printers, with the maximum observed deviations ranging between 1.17% and 2.03% (notably observed in the Creo C5 printer). Transversal distortion exhibited variance based on the linear accuracy of each printer, with Stratasys21 and Formlabs 3B demonstrating superior accuracy among the evaluated printers. Distortions in the analyzed dimensions (specifically, anterior b–c, posterior a–d, and oblique a–c) were found to be uniform. In conclusion, while the first null hypothesis was rejected, indicating variations in trueness among the 3D printers assessed, our findings affirm the suitability of all five analyzed 3D printers for clinical applications. Consequently, these printers can be utilized for the fabrication of high-precision mastercasts in dental prosthodontics manufacturing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
