Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 18, 2025
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Evaluation of current additive manufacturing systems for orthodontic 3-dimensional printing
Sercan Akyalcin1, Phillip Rutkowski1, Michael Arrigo1
1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Mass.
Introduction:
The objective of this research was to evaluate and compare linear and surface accuracy of dental models fabricated using 3 different vat photopolymerization printing units: digital light synthesis (M2 Printer; Carbon, Redwood City, Calif), digital light processing (Juell 3D Flash OC; Park Dental Research, New York, NY), and stereolithography apparatus (Form 2; Formlabs Inc, Somerville, Mass), and a material jetting printing unit: PolyJet (Objet Eden 260VS; Stratasys, Eden Prairie, Minn).
Methods:
Maxillary and mandibular dental arches of 20 patients with the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index scores ranging between 10 and 30 were scanned using an intraoral scanner. Stereolithographic files of each patient were printed via the 3-dimensional (3D) printers and were digitized again using a 3D desktop scanner to enable comparisons with the original scan data. One-sample t test and linear regression analyses were performed. To further graphically examine the accuracy between the different methods, Bland-Altman plots were computed. The level of significance was set at P <0.05.
Results:
Bland-Altman analysis showed no fixed bias of one approach vs the other, and random errors were detected in all linear accuracy comparisons. When a 0.25 mm tolerance level was deemed acceptable for any positive or negative surface changes, only the models manufactured from digital light processing and PolyJet units showed more than 97% match with the original scans.
Conclusion:
The surface area of 3D printed models did not yield an utterly identical match to the original scan data and was affected by the type of printer. The clinical relevance of the differences observed on the 3D printed dental model surfaces requires application-specific judgments.
