Accuracy and resolution of conventional and additively manufactured silicone elastomers as applied in maxillofacial...

Silicone elastomers are becoming more readily available for additive manufacturing, which may be advantageous for fabricating maxillofacial prostheses. However, the properties of three-dimensionally (3D) printed silicone as compared with conventionally processed silicone have not been well studied.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface resolution of additively manufactured with conventional room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) silicones.

A custom aluminum mold was used to generate hand-spatulated specimens (A103 and VerSilTal-50F, n=20). A computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing workflow was used to generate additively manufactured specimens (Sil30 and TrueSil, n=20). Digital surface scans of each specimen were recorded; a scan of the mold served as the control. Surface dimensions were measured with a digital metrology software program, while digital overlays were made using a 3D processing software program. The surface resolution of the specimens was assessed by analyzing 4 topographical landmarks (flat surfaces, raised lines, domes, and scribed lines) with a visual qualitative grading scale. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance, followed by a Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test (α=.05).

The specimens demonstrated statistical differences in trueness and precision (P<.001). The TrueSil specimens showed the largest deviation in measurements of trueness and precision (up to -1.374%). The other specimens yielded percentage mean differences that were more consistently within the range of the American Dental Association International Organization for Standardization standard for elastomers. The manually fabricated specimens yielded more consistently ideal ratings for resolution than did the additively manufactured ones, with the Sil30 specimens receiving the most Charlie (not clinically acceptable) ratings.

Numerical differences between each specimen and the control were considered negligible for maxillofacial applications. Notable discrepancies related to the quality of resolution, wherein the benchtop-manufactured specimens consistently generated better results compared with additively manufactured ones. Other factors, such as resiliency, odor, and cost, posed limitations in justifying the use of silicones in a direct-to-print workflow.