Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Quadrant Phantom Model Design
2.2. Digital Scanning Process
2.3. Three-Dimensional Analysis
2.4. 3D Printing Process
2.5. Comparative Photo Analysis Through the Experimental Process
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Trueness of Only the IOS Process
3.2. Trueness of IOS and 3D Printing Processes
3.3. Trueness of the 3D Printing Process
3.4. Analysis of Differences between IOS-3DP and Ref-IOS/3DP Deviations
3.5. Comparative Photo Result
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- In the Ref-IOS group, the i500 scanner was accurate (p < 0.05).
- In the Ref-IOS/3DP group, the best match was the combination of i500 and DLP, while Trios3 and i500 were more suitable for an SLA printer. Meanwhile, the FDM printer was suitable for use with the CS3600 (p < 0.05).
- In the IOS-3DP group, the best match was the combination of i500 and DLP, while CS3600 and FDM were suitable for use together. Meanwhile, the SLA printer worked well with all scanners (p < 0.05).
- The mutual relationship between IOS and the 3D printer varied depending on the combination. Although no equipment could be classified as being the most accurate, the DLP printer was most accurate in this study, regardless of which scanner it was combined with (p < 0.05).
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Park, J.M. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: Sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2016, 8, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, R.J.-Y.; Park, J.-M.; Shim, J.-S. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, J.M.; Kim, R.J.; Lee, K.W. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 123, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dawood, A.; Marti, B.M.; Sauret-Jackson, V.; Darwood, A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 219, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liaw, C.-Y.; Guvendiren, M. Current and emerging applications of 3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication 2017, 9, 024102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addi, S.; Hedayati-Khams, A.; Poya, A.; Sjögren, G. Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro. J. Dent. 2002, 30, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.-H.; Park, J.-M.; Kim, M.; Heo, S.-J.; Myung, J.-Y. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 119, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.E.; Hong, Y.S.; Kang, Y.J.; Kim, J.H.; Shim, J.S. Accuracy of scanned stock abutments using different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nestler, N.; Wesemann, C.; Spies, B.C.; Beuer, F.; Bumann, A. Dimensional accuracy of extrusion-and photopolymerization-based 3D printers: In vitro study comparing printed casts. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahayeri, A.; Morgan, M.; Fugolin, A.P.; Bompolaki, D.; Athirasala, A.; Pfeifer, C.S.; Ferracane, J.L.; Bertassoni, L.E. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Son, K.; Lee, W.-S.; Lee, K.-B. Effect of repeated learning for two dental CAD software programs. J. Dent. Rehabil. Appl. Sci. 2017, 33, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.E.; Amelya, A.; Shin, Y.; Shim, J.S. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mangano, F.G.; Veronesi, G.; Hauschild, U.; Mijiritsky, E.; Mangano, C. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.K.; Kim, J.M.; Lee, Y.M.; Lim, Y.J.; Lee, S.-P. The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry. Clin. Anat. 2019, 32, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, J.-M.; Kim, J.; Shim, J.-S. Review of computer-assisted implant surgeries: Navigation surgery system vs. computer-guided implant template vs. robot. Implantology 2018, 22, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, K.C.; Park, J.-M.; Shim, J.-S.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, J.-E.; Kim, J.-H. Assessment of metal sleeve-free 3D-printed implant surgical guides. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cole, D.; Bencharit, S.; Carrico, C.K.; Arias, A.; Tüfekçi, E. Evaluation of fit for 3D-printed retainers compared with thermoform retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2019, 155, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gjelvold, B.; Mahmood, D.J.H.; Wennerberg, A. Accuracy of surgical guides from 2 different desktop 3D printers for computed tomography-guided surgery. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, Y.-G.; Lee, W.-S.; Lee, K.-B. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2018, 10, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, R.J.-Y.; Benic, G.I.; Park, J.-M. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Braian, M.; Wennerberg, A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 122, 129–136.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rodiger, M.; Heinitz, A.; Burgers, R.; Rinke, S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2017, 21, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gjelvold, B.; Chrcanovic, B.R.; Korduner, E.K.; Collin-Bagewitz, I.; Kisch, J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J. Prosthodont. 2016, 25, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, J.-h.; Tahk, J.; Chun, Y.; Park, J.-M.; Kim, M. Analysis on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: The Effects of Mandibular Anterior Interdental Space. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, M.; Mehl, A.; Mormann, W.H.; Reich, S. Intraoral scanning systems—A current overview. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2015, 18, 101–129. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Renne, W.; Ludlow, M.; Fryml, J.; Schurch, Z.; Mennito, A.; Kessler, R.; Lauer, A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 118, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ender, A.; Attin, T.; Mehl, A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 115, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.; Park, J.M.; Kim, M.; Heo, S.J.; Shin, I.H.; Kim, M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 116, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.-J.; Jeong, I.-D.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, W.-C. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of dental models fabricated using additive manufacturing methods. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2018, 21, 107–113. [Google Scholar]
- Wesemann, C.; Muallah, J.; Mah, J.; Bumann, A. 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. Quintessence Int. 2017, 48, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
- Park, G.-S.; Kim, S.-K.; Heo, S.-J.; Koak, J.-Y.; Seo, D.-G. Effects of Printing Parameters on the Fit of Implant-Supported 3D Printing Resin Prosthetics. Materials 2019, 12, 2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.Y.; Shin, Y.S.; Jung, H.D.; Hwang, C.J.; Baik, H.S.; Cha, J.Y. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2018, 153, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rehmann, P.; Sichwardt, V.; Wöstmann, B. Intraoral Scanning Systems: Need for Maintenance. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2017, 30, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.-H.; Yun, J.-H.; Han, J.-S.; Yeo, I.-S.L.; Yoon, H.-I. Repeatability of Intraoral Scanners for Complete Arch Scan of Partially Edentulous Dentitions: An In Vitro Study. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Botsch, M.; Kobbelt, L.; Pauly, M.; Alliez, P.; Lévy, B. Polygon Mesh Processing; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ender, A.; Zimmermann, M.; Attin, T.; Mehl, A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016, 20, 1495–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ender, A.; Mehl, A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 109, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, G.-H.; Hsu, S.-H. Review: Polymeric-Based 3D Printing for Tissue Engineering. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 2015, 35, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rebong, R.E.; Stewart, K.T.; Utreja, A.; Ghoneima, A.A. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study. Angle Orthod. 2018, 88, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, M.-E.; Shin, S.-Y. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 119, 861.e1–861.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
System | Manufacturer | Scanner Technology | Light Source | Acquisition Method | Necessary of Coating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Identica T500 | MEDIT Corp. | Phase-shifting optical triangulation | Blue LED 1 | Video | None |
CS3600 | Carestream Dental | Active triangulation (Stream projection) | Light | Video | None |
i500 | MEDIT Corp. | Dual camera optical triangulation | Light | Video | None |
Trios3 | 3shape | Confocal microscopy | Light | Video | None |
3D Printer | Category | Additive Manufacturing Process | Techniques | Layer Thickness | Print Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Formlabs Form2 | Vat photopolymerization | SLA technology that operates by heating a hard-photosensitive liquid resin into a hard-solid 3D form made of plastic through the application of a powerful laser beam with vat polymerization-based technology. Accordingly, after projecting a laser beam moved by micromirrors, the resin layer is cured to produce the product. SLA could produce complex shapes with high functional resolution and produce smooth and precise lines to produce good models. | Stereolithography apparatus (SLA) | 100 μm | 2 h 54 min |
Veltz3D D2 | Vat photopolymerization | DLP technology is similar to that of SLA, but it uses a high intensity light beam instead and the desired shape is formed as the liquid photopolymer resin hardens. However, rough lines may be produced, and pixels may be displayed depending on the resolution of the digital light projector. This means that the resolution of the projector is reflected in the quality of the final product. DLP has good accuracy and produce smooth surfaces. | Digital light processing (DLP) | 100 μm | 50 min |
Flashforge Creator Pro | Material extrusion | One of the popular 3D printers that represents AM technology is the FDM printer with extrusion-based technology. A pressure-based process heats thermoplastic or composite filament material in the bottom layer to its melting point and releases it layer by layer to produce a pressure-assisted 3D printed product. The material used for the FDM is relatively inexpensive and can have a high mechanical strength. | Fused deposition modeling (FDM) | 100 μm | 3 h 12 min |
Variable | N | Ref-IOS Data | Ref-IOS/DLP Data | Ref-IOS/FDM Data | Ref-IOS/SLA Data | IOS-DLP Data | IOS-FDM Data | IOS-SLA Data |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median (Q1–Q3) | ||||||||
CS3600 | 10 | 30.2 (27.1–34.9) a | 59.5 (57.9–66.1) a | 64.3 (63.8–68.1) b | 57.1 (46.7–64.8) ab | 51.8 (49.8–55.8) a | 73.3 (71.8–75.1) b | 61.5 (58.1–68.3) a |
i500 | 10 | 23.5 (20.8–25.9) b | 43.2 (38.5–46.1) b | 81.9 (79.9–85.2) a | 65.5 (62.8–68.9) a | 46.2 (44.4–48.4) b | 77.6 (74.9–79.9) a | 60.2(56.6–63.1) a |
Trios3 | 10 | 26.9 (24.5–28.6) ab | 44.8 (39.2–48.2) b | 78.8 (74.5–81.5) a | 56.6 (47.9–60.5) b | 50.8 (47.1–54.7) ab | 78.8 (75.1–81.1) a | 61.2(56.9–66.3) a |
Total | 30 | 26.6 (24.5–28.9) | 47.1 (41.6–58.2) | 76.3 (66.5–81.5) | 59.8 (53.5–65.5) | 49.5 (46.4–53.5) | 75.9 (73.3–79.1) | 61.2 (57.5–65.8) |
df | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Chi-square | - | 15.4 | 19.6 | 19.1 | 8.7 | 10.5 | 11.5 | 0.7 |
p value | - | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.013 | 0.005 | 0.03 | 0.695 |
Variable | IOS-DLP―Ref-IOS/DLP | IOS-FDM―Ref-IOS/FDM | IOS-SLA―Ref-IOS/SLA |
---|---|---|---|
CS3600 | 51.8b―59.5a | 73.3a―64.3b | 61.5a―57.1b |
i500 | 46.2a―43.2b | 77.6b―81.9a | 60.2b―65.5a |
Trios3 | 50.8a―44.8b | 78.8a―78.8a | 61.2a―56.6b |
Sum of Squares | 3.408(143.092) | 14.308(46.122) | 87.363(191.065) |
df | 1(27) | 1(27) | 1(27) |
Median square | 3.408(5.300) | 14.308(1.708) | 87.363(7.076) |
F | 0.643(−) | 8.376(−) | 12.345(−) |
p value | 0.430(−) | 0.007(−) | 0.002(−) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Im, C.-H.; Park, J.-M.; Kim, J.-H.; Kang, Y.-J.; Kim, J.-H. Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models. Materials 2020, 13, 4419. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma13194419
Im C-H, Park J-M, Kim J-H, Kang Y-J, Kim J-H. Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models. Materials. 2020; 13(19):4419. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma13194419
Chicago/Turabian StyleIm, Chang-Hee, Ji-Man Park, Jang-Hyun Kim, You-Jung Kang, and Jee-Hwan Kim. 2020. "Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models" Materials 13, no. 19: 4419. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ma13194419