Digital analysis of internal fit variation of additively manufactured crown patterns

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to digitally quantify the consistency and variation of printed resin crown patterns produced by different 3D printers, aiming to evaluate their clinical relevance and accuracy. This was accomplished by evaluating patterns manufactured using three different 3D printers and resin materials, assessing their fit and adaptation through digital scanning and analysis. The objective was to determine the internal and marginal variations of printed crown resin patterns and to identify the printer and material combinations that produce the most consistent and clinically acceptable results. Methods: A prefabricated typodont tooth was prepared for a crown and scanned using an intraoral scanner. From this scan, a crown was designed and the resulting STL file was exported. This 3D file was manufactured using resins indicated for castable patterns on 3 different printers: FotoDent® Cast with the Carbon M2 printer, Form 3 Castable with the Form 2 printer, and Siraya Tech Cast with the ELEGOO Mars 2 Pro 3D printer. Finally, the crown resin patterns were scanned using an intraoral digital scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) scanner, and crown adaptation was digitally quantified in GeoMagic software. Clinically relevant significance was determined (marginal gap < 50 µm) between resin patterns printed on different printers. Results: Form 3 Castable/Form 2 printer had the lowest mean internal variation at all measurement areas, 21.07 μm at the occlusal, 104.23 μm at the margin, and 37.98 μm at the axial. FotoDent® Cast/Carbon M2 had the largest marginal variation while Siraya Tech Cast/ELEGOO Mars 2 Pro had the largest occlusal variation. Within each material, the largest internal variation was at the marginal area while the lowest value was in the occlusal area. Conclusions: All printed crowns displayed clinically acceptable ranges, but there was a statistically significant difference in the fit between all printers.

Keywords

3D printers / CAD-CAM / cast patterns / dental crown / marginal gap / resin

References

[1] Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 54-64.

[2] Park JH, Jung JW, Kang HW, Cho DW. Indirect three-dimensional printing of synthetic polymer scaffold based on thermal molding process. Biofabrication. 2014; 6: 025003.

[3] Ishida Y, Miyasaka T. Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J. 2016; 35: 250-6.

[4] Chaudhary R, Fabbri P, Leoni E, Mazzanti F, Akbari R, Antonini C. Additive manufacturing by digital light processing: a review. Prog Addit Manuf. 2023; 8: 331-51.

[5] McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971; 131: 107-11.

[6] Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 405-8.

[7] Bae EJ, Jeong ID, Kim WC, Kim JH. A comparative study of additive and subtractive manufacturing for dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 187-93.

[8] Arora O, Ahmed N, Maiti S. Comparison of the marginal accuracy of metal copings fabricated by 3D-printed resin and milled polymethyl methacrylate-An in vitro study . J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022; 13: S238-42.

[9] Kakinuma H, Izumita K, Yoda N, Egusa H, Sasaki K. Comparison of the accuracy of resin-composite crowns fabricated by three-dimensional printing and milling methods. Dent Mater J. 2022; 41: 808-15.

[10] Son K, Lee JH, Lee KB. Comparison of Intaglio Surface Trueness of Interim Dental Crowns Fabricated with SLA 3D Printing, DLP 3D Printing, and Milling Technologies. Healthcare (Basel). 2021; 9: 983.

[11] Park JY, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Comparison of prosthetic models produced by traditional and additive manufacturing methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 294-302.

[12] Khaledi AA, Farzin MM, Akhlaghian M, Pardis S, Mir N. Evaluation of the marginal fit of metal copings fabricated by using 3 different CAD-CAM techniques: Milling, stereolithography, and 3D wax printer. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 81-6.

[13] Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Tarvonen P, Silvast T, Lappalainen R. Accuracy of Dental Restorations Fabricated Using Milling vs 3D-Printed Molds: A Pilot Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2024; 37: 79-88.

[14] Refaie A, Fouda A, Bourauel C, Singer L. Marginal gap and internal fit of 3D printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 448.

[15] Fathi HM, Al-Masoody AH, El-Ghezawi N, Johnson A. The Accuracy of Fit of Crowns Made from Wax Patterns Produced Conventionally (Hand Formed) and Via CAD/CAM Technology. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016; 24: 10-7.

[16] Lu TY, Lin WC, Yang TH, Sahrir CD, Shen YK, Feng SW. The Influence of Dental Virtualization, Restoration Types, and Placement Angles on the Trueness and Contact Space in 3D-Printed Crowns: A Comprehensive Exploration. Dent J (Basel). 2023; 12: 2.

[17] Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors Influencing the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Full-Coverage Dental Restorations Using Stereolithography Technology. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 503-10.

[18] Metin DS, Schmidt F, Beuer F, Prause E, Ashurko I, Sarmadi BS, et al. Accuracy of the intaglio surface of 3D-printed hybrid resin-ceramic crowns, veneers and table-tops: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2024; 144: 104960.

[19] Cao J, Liu X, Cameron A, Aarts J, Choi JJE. Influence of different post-processing methods on the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed photopolymers for dental crown applications-A systematic review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2024; 150: 106314.

[20] Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Ritter AV. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2012.

[21] Yilmaz B, Donmez MB, Kahveci Ç, Cuellar AR, de Paula MS, Schimmel M, et al. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured removable dies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128: 1318.e1-9.

[22] Al-Imam H, Gram M, Benetti AR, Gotfredsen K. Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 580-5.

[23] Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. In: Carmichael M, editor. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.