Trueness of five different 3D printing systems including budget- and professional-grade printers: An In vitro study

Abstract

Problem: Several types of 3D printers with different techniques and prices are available on the market. However, results in the literature are inconsistent, and there is no comprehensive agreement on the accuracy of 3D printers of different price categories for dental applications.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of five different 3D printing systems, including a comparison of budget- and higher-end 3D printing systems, according to a standardized production and evaluation protocol.

Material and methods: A maxillary reference model with prepared teeth was created using 16 half-ball markers with a diameter of 1 mm to facilitate measurements. A reference file was fabricated using five different 3D printers. The printed models were scanned and superimposed onto the original standard tesselation language (.stl) file, and digital measurements were performed to assess the 3-dimensional and linear deviations between the reference and test models.

Results: After examining the entire surface of the models, we found that 3D printers using Fused filament fabrication (FFF) technology -120.2 (20.3) μm create models with high trueness but high distortion. Distortions along the z-axis were found to be the highest with the stereolithography (SLA)-type 3D printer at -153.7 (38.7) μm. For the 4-unit FPD, we found 201.9 (41.8) μm deviation with the digital light processing (DLP) printer. The largest deviation (-265.1 (55.4) μm) between the second molars was observed for the DLP printer. Between the incisor and the second molar, the best results were produced by the FFF printer with -30.5 (76.7) μm.

Conclusion: Budget-friendly 3D printers are comparable to professional-grade printers in terms of precision. In general, the cost of a printing system is not a reliable indicator of its level of accuracy.

Keywords: 3-D Printing; CAD-CAM; Digital dentistry; Model; Rapid prototyping.

Fig. 1

The digital image of the master model.

Fig. 2

Positioning of the models in PreForm.

Fig. 3

Post-processing using the Anycubic Wash And Cure 2.0.

Fig. 4

The following distances were measured digitally on the cast.

Fig. 5

The vertical “Z” axis deviation measured between marks on right central incisor die and gingival surface.

Fig. 6

Whole deviation (WHL, μm).

Fig. 7

Deviation in height of the prepared right central incisor (μm).

Fig. 8

Deviation in distance between 4-unit FPD abutments (μm).

Fig. 9

Deviation in distance between right central incisor and left third molar (μm).

Fig. 10

Deviation in distance between upper right third molar and upper left first molar (μm).