Wie präzise ist die Herstellung von Modellen mittels Low Budget 3D-Druckern? Eine Pilotstudie

Zusammenfassung

Das Ziel der Studie war es die Präzision von zwei 3D-Low-Budget-Druckern bei der Herstellung von Modellen zu erfassen.

Material und Methode: 12 zufällig ausgewählte Gipsmodelle der Universitätsklinik für Kieferorthopädie Innsbruck dienten als Ausgangmodelle. Diese wurden mit dem optischen Streifenlicht-Scanner S600 ARTI (Firma Zirkon Zahn, Italy) eingescannt. Anschließend wurde der erfasste Datensatz mit dem Meshlab Programm (Computer Science department of the University of Pisa) nachbearbeitet. Der Datensatz diente als Druckanleitung für die beiden 3D-Low-Budget-Drucker, dem Formlabs Form 1 (Formlabs Inc., Somerville, USA) und dem Makerbot Replicator 2 (MakerBot Industries, Brooklyn, USA). Die gedruckten Modelle wurden mit dem S600 ARTI Scanner eingescannt. Anhand der GOM–Inspect Software (GOM – Gesellschaft für Optische Messtechnik mbH, Braunschweig, Germany) konnten alle Modelle gegeneinander verglichen werden.

Ergebnisse: Der Median Error betrug für den Formlabs Form 1 im OK −0,12 mm und im UK −0,32 mm. Der Median Error des Makerbot Replikators 2 betrug im OK −0,04 mm und im UK −0,03 mm.

Konklusion: Die Genauigkeit und Richtigkeit von 3D-gedruckten Modellen des Makerbot Replikator 2 zu Gipsmodellen ist akzeptabel. 3D-gedruckte Modelle können eine gute Alternative zu traditionell hergestellten Gipsmodellen darstellen.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of two 3D low budget printers in producing dental casts.

Materials and Methods: 12 plaster dental casts were randomly selected at the University of Orthodontics Innsbruck. They were scanned with strip-light Scanner S600 ARTI (Firma Zirkon Zahn, Italy). Afterwards the data were processed using the Meshlab Programm (Computer Science department of the University of Pisa). With these data the dental casts were printed either by Formlabs form 1 (Formlabs Inc., Somerville, USA) or Makerbot Replicator 2 (MakerBot Industries, Brooklyn, USA). The Formalds Form 1 uses stereolithography (SLA), while the Makerbot Replikator 2 works with fused filament fabrication (FFF). The obtained dental cast were scanned again with Scanner S600 ARTI. The digital casts were analysed using GOM-Inspect (GOM – Gesellschaft für Optische Messtechnik mbH, Braunschweig, Germany) to evaluate the differences of the materials used.

Results: Comparing the dental plaster casts of the maxilla vs. those produced by the Formlabs Form 1 (Formlabs Inc., Somerville, USA) the median error in the upper jaw was −0.12 mm and in the lower jaw −0.32 mm.

While it was in the upper jaw −0.04 mm and in the lower jaw −0.03 mm for the Makerbot Replicator 2 (MakerBot Industries, Brooklyn, USA).

Conclusion: 3D casts can be a reliable alternative to traditional plaster casts, since the precision is acceptable.

Schlüsselwörter

3D-Low-Budget-Drucker - FFF - SLA

Key words

3D low budget printer - FFF - SLA

• Literatur

• 1 Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. Journal Orthod 2003; 30: 219-223
• 2 Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed ba different rapid prototyping techniques. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics: 2014; 145: 108-115
• 3 Cuperus AMR, Harms MC, Rangel FA et al. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: A validation study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2011; 142: 308-313
• 4 Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R et al. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. Journal of Orthodontics 2008; 35: 191-201
• 5 Ayoub AF, Wray D, Moos KF et al. A three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study casts: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 79-84
• 6 Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B et al. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of plaster vs. digital study models: Comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006; 129: 794-803
• 7 http://solutions.3mdeutschland.de/wps/portal/3M/de_DE/orthodontics_EU/Unitek/SolutionsCategory/Lingualtechnik/incognito-neuheiten/ (Stand vom: 20.9.2014)
• 8 http://www.pcwelt.de/produkte/Makerbot_Replicator_2_im_Praxistest-3D-Drucker-8116142.html (Stand vom: 20.9.2014)
• 9 http://www.tobatec.net/Stereolithografie.html (Stand vom: 20.9.2014)
• 10 Radeke J, von der Wense C, Lapatki BG. Comparison of orthodontc measurements on dental plaster casts and 3D scans. Journal of Orofacial 2014; Orthopedics 4
• 11 Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim WC et al. Accuracy and precision of polyurethalne dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an introral scanning technique. The korean journal of orthodontics 2014; 44: 69-76
• 12 König W, Klocke F. Fertigungsverfahren 3, Abtragen und Generieren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1997: 240
• 13 Kasparova MGL, Dvorak P, Dostalova T et al. Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3 digital study models. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2013; 1-11
• 14 Quimby ML, Vig KWL, Rasihd RG et al. The Accuracy and Reliability of Measurements Made on Computer-Based Digital Models. Angle Orthodontist 2004; 74: 298-303
• 15 Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tminaga R et al. Three-dimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996; 110: 365-369
• 16 Schirmer UR, Wiltshire WA. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1997; 112: 676-680
• 17 König W, Klocke F. Fertigungsverfahren 3, Abtragen und Generieren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1997: 240
• 18 Hirogaki Y, Sohmura T, Satoh H et al. Complete 3-D reconstruction of dental cast shape using perceptual grouping. IEEETrans Med Imaging 2001; 20: 1093-1101