Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two 3D printed dental models manufactured after intraoral/IO and extraoral/EO scanning. A dental study model (KaVo Dental GmbH/Germany) was used as a reference for this research; this model was scanned with an industrial scanner (XT H 225 ST/Industrial CT scan/Nikon Metrology Inc./U.S.A.) and a reference STL file was generated (coded M1). Two 3D printed models (Form2/FormLabs Inc./U.S.A.) were produced via IO scanning (TRIOS 3 Battery Cart/3 Shape/Denmark), respectively via EO scanning (Swing Dental Scanner/Dof Inc./South Korea) of the reference dental model. The 3D printed models obtained were scanned with the industrial scanner, resulting in other two STL files (coded M2, respectively M3). All the STL files obtained (reference M1; M2; M3) were compared in pairs, using a 3D analysis software. Good results were achieved in obtaining 3D printed dental models via IO or EO scanning, yet, the 3D printed dental model obtained via IO scanning (M3) showed slightly improved dimensional compatibility with the reference model (M1) in comparison with the 3D printed dental model manufactured via EO scanning (M2).
Highlights
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two 3D printed dental models manufactured after intraoral/IO and extraoral/EO scanning
On the other hand, according to the results of valuable in vitro [6-10] or in vivo [11- 13] studies conducted between 2010 and 2018, the idea that fixed prosthetic restorations obtained in digital flow have a good marginal adaptation, equal to or better than those obtained by extaoral/EO scanning of the impression or of the dental model, is gaining significance
Analysing the results obtained when using the alignment with regions of interest, we found a better dimensional similarity between the reference model M1 and model M3 compared to the model M2
Summary
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two 3D printed dental models manufactured after intraoral/IO and extraoral/EO scanning. The 3D printed models obtained were scanned with the industrial scanner, resulting in other two STL files (coded M2, respectively M3). On the other hand, according to the results of valuable in vitro [6-10] or in vivo [11- 13] studies conducted between 2010 and 2018, the idea that fixed prosthetic restorations obtained in digital flow (including intraoral/IO scanning) have a good marginal adaptation, equal to or better than those obtained by extaoral/EO scanning of the impression or of the dental model, is gaining significance. As the issues presented above are still controversial and need to be further explored, the purpose of this scientific paper was to perform an in vitro comparison of two methods of obtaining 3D printed dental models: a method using a laboratory scanner (extraoral scanner/EO), respectively, a method using an intraoral scanner/IO
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
