Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 189-193
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705243
Original Article

Comparison of the Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Printed Casts, Digital, and Conventional Casts: An In Vitro Study

Passent Aly
1   Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
,
Cherif Mohsen
1   Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The integration of computer-aided design and manufacturing technologies in diagnosis, treatment planning, and fabrication of prosthetic restoration is changing the way in which prosthodontic treatment is provided to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed casts produced from the intraoral scanner using stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing technique, their digital replicas, and conventional stone casts.

Materials and Methods In this in vitro study, a typodont of maxillary and mandibular arches with full dentate ivory teeth was used as a reference cast. The typodont was digitized using Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner to create digital casts. The digital files were converted into 3D printed physical casts using a prototyping machine that utilizes the stereolithography printing technology and photocurable polymer as printing material. Linear measurements (mesiodistal and occlusocervical) and interarch measurements (intercanine and intermolar) were made for digital and prototyped models and were compared with the original stone casts. The reference teeth were canines, first premolars and second premolars in the maxillary and mandibular arches on the right and left sides. The measurements on printed and conventional casts were done by digital caliper while on digital casts; Geomagic Qualify software was used.

Statistical Analysis One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare measurements among groups.

Results Digital casts showed significantly higher error than the other two groups in all linear and interarch measurements. The mean errors of the digital cast in occlusocervical (OC) and mesiodistal (MD) measurements (0.016 and 0.006, respectively) were higher compared with those in the other two groups (OC, 0.004 and 0.007 and MD, 0.003 and 0.005 [p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively]). Also, digital mean error in intermolar width (IMW) and intercanine width (ICW) (0.142 and 0.113, respectively) were greater than the other two groups (IMW, 0.019 and 0.008 and ICW, 0.021 and 0.011 [p < 0.0001]). However, the errors were within the acceptable clinical range.

Conclusion The 3D printed casts may be considered as a substitute for stone casts with clinically acceptable accuracy that can be used in diagnosis, treatment planning, and fabrication of prosthetic restorations.

Keywords

digital casts - intraoral scanner - three-dimensional printing


Publication History

Article published online:
20 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Horton HMI, Miller JR, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Technique comparison for efficient orthodontic tooth measurements using digital models. Angle Orthod 2010; 80 (02) 254-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lemos LS, Rebello IM, Vogel CJ, Barbosa MC. Reliability of measurements made on scanned cast models using the 3 Shape R 700 scanner. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (06) 20140337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kumar A, Ghafoor H. Rapid prototyping: a future in orthodontics. J Orthod Res 2016; 4: 1-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143 (01) 140-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Güth J-F, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17 (04) 1201-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Abdul Hamid NF, Wan Bakar WZ, Ariffin Z. Marginal gap evaluation of metal onlays and resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing blocks onlays. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (01) 17-21
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jacob HB, Wyatt GD, Buschang PH. Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners. Prog Orthod 2015; 16: 38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vogel AB, Kilic F, Schmidt F, Rübel S, Lapatki BG. Dimensional accuracy of jaw scans performed on alginate impressions or stone models: a practice-oriented study. J Orofac Orthop 2015; 76 (04) 351-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (06) 715-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Soltani N. Marginal discrepancy of single implant-supported metal copings fabricated by various CAD/CAM and conventional techniques using different materials. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 563-568
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Radeke J, von der Wense C, Lapatki BG. Comparison of orthodontic measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. J Orofac Orthop 2014; 75 (04) 264-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM. Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (02) 255-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (01) 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Saleh WK, Ariffin E, Sherriff M, Bister D. Accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of resin, plaster, digital and printed study-models. J Orthod 2015; 42 (04) 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (06) 755-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nayar S, Bhuminathan S, Bhat WM. Rapid prototyping and stereolithography in dentistry. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015; 7 (Suppl 1) S216-S219
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60 (02) 72-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (01) 54-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brown GB, Currier GF, Kadioglu O, Kierl JP. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 154 (05) 733-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Alikhasi M, Rohanian A, Ghodsi S, Kolde AM. Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 71-76
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hunter WS, Priest WR. Errors and discrepancies in measurement of tooth size. J Dent Res 1960; 39: 405-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD. et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod 2010; 80 (04) 474-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144 (02) 304-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29 (05) 517-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C. et al. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32 (05) 589-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Czarnota J, Hey J, Fuhrmann R. Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts. J Orofac Orthop 2016; 77 (01) 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zilberman O, Huggare JAV, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 2003; 73 (03) 301-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136 (01) 16.e1-16.e4, discussion 16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou AM El-Ezz, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (02) 259-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142 (02) 269-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109 (02) 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144 (03) 471-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008; 35 (03) 191-201, discussion 175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P. et al. Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online 2013; 12: 49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Patzelt SBM, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145 (11) 1133-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar