Effect of Horizontal Resolution of Printer on Trueness of 3D-Printed Provisional Crown: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Objectives Provisional crowns play an integral role in prosthodontic therapy and need to be fabricated with high accuracy to ensure good marginal fit and proper contour. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of 3D printer's horizontal pixel resolution on trueness of the intaglio surface, external surface, and marginal area and the actual marginal adaptation of the interim crowns.

Materials and Methods A gypsum reference model of mandible with a prepared right first molar was scanned with a dental laboratory scanner (AutoScan-DS-MIX, Shining 3D) and a digital provisional crown was design using the computer-aided design (CAD) software (Exocad). The provisional crown was manufactured by two printers with different horizontal resolutions (Sonic Mini 4K Printer and Sonic Mini 8K Printer). The printed crowns were scanned using the aforementioned scanner. The trueness of the external surface, internal surface, and marginal area of the provisional crowns was evaluated by comparing the scanned data with the reference CAD design data using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems). The trueness of the crown manufactured by two printers was compared by a two-sided test (α = 0.05). Finally, the marginal adaptation of the provisional crowns was evaluated on the printed removable dies and compared.

Results The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the trueness of the marginal area and the marginal adaptation (p < 0.05).

Conclusions It can be concluded that the trueness of provisional crown marginal area and the marginal adaptation was affected by the horizontal resolution of the 3D printer.

Keywords

provisional crown - horizontal resolution - trueness - 3D printer - interim crown - marginal area

Introduction

Provisional crowns play an integral role in prosthodontic therapy. They are necessary despite the fact that early placement of a definitive restoration can be done a few days after tooth preparation.[1] [2] As the template for final restoration, provisional crowns need to be fabricated with strict criteria that include good marginal fit and proper contour for preventing plaque retention, and reserve contacts with adjacent and opposing teeth to avoid tooth movement during waiting time.[3] [4] [5]

Provisional crowns are conventionally fabricated by manual method using auto-polymerized resin in combination with silicone impression or thermoplastic tray.[5] Recently, provisional crown manufacture with computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology has become a popular option.[6] [7] The CAD/CAM method reduces human and material errors that usually happen with conventional methods.[8] [9] With the CAD/CAM workflows, a digital impression is adequate for manufacturing both provisional and final prostheses, which has the advantage of saving time and material.[10]

Several studies have assessed the effects of printer technology, printing parameters, and post-curing parameters on the accuracy of the 3D-printed provisional crowns. The stereolithography apparatus (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) technologies produce interim crowns with similar trueness for intaglio surface, but not for the occlusal region.[10] The post-curing time of 10 minutes is optimal for the accuracy of the provisional crowns.[2] The recommended build angle of SLA 3D printing is between 150 and 210 degrees to achieve high trueness of provisional crowns.[7]

Horizontal resolution or XY resolution is a parameter representing the horizontal accuracy of the printer, which can be defined as the size of each printing pixel in the horizontal plane. In other words, the printer with a smaller size of each pixel would have higher accuracy and ability to print with more details. The recent introduction of 8K liquid crystal display (LCD) printer with better horizontal resolution is promising to improve the accuracy of 3D-printed interim crowns. The Phrozen Sonic Mini 8K Printer (Phrozen, Hsinchu, Taiwan) has the horizontal resolution of 22 µm and 1,152 ppi, and is more accurate than common dental 3D printers such as Asiga Max UV (62 µm), Ackuretta Sol (49 µm), Planmeca Creo C5 (50 µm), NextDent 5100 (65 µm), Formlabs Form 3+ (25 µm), EnvisionTEC Vida HD (50 µm), and EnvisionTEC D4K Pro (25 µm).[11]

Currently, there is no article comparing the accuracy of printed provisional crowns fabricated with different horizontal resolutions of different 3D printers. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of a printer's horizontal pixel resolution on the trueness of the intaglio surface, external surface, and marginal area and the actual marginal adaptation of the interim crowns. The null hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in the trueness and marginal adaptation of provisional dental crowns manufactured by two 3D printers with different horizontal resolutions.

Materials and Methods

The research protocol is illustrated in a flowchart in [Fig. 1]. A gypsum reference model of the mandible with a prepared right first molar was scanned with a dental laboratory scanner AutoScan-DS-MIX (Shining 3D, Hangzhou, China), which had an accuracy of 7 µm according to the manufacturer. The preparation was performed by an experienced prosthodontist with a chamfer finish line using a diamond bur (TF-11; Mani, Tochigi, Japan) with a round end taper shape.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of research protocol. 22-HRPPC, 22-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown; 52-HRPPC, 52-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown.

A provisional crown was designed based on the digital scan using DentalCAD software (Exocad, Darmstadt, Germany) and exported as a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, which would be used as a reference model.[12] [13] The STL file was imported into the Lychee Slicer printing software (Mango 3D, Bordeaux, France) and exported as Chitubox format for printing with two different printers, that is, Sonic Mini 4K Printer and Sonic Mini 8K Printer with the horizontal resolutions of 52 and 22 µm, respectively (n = 10 per printer resolution). All the support designs of the crowns were identical. The building angle was 180 degrees with the occlusal surface facing the platform and the layer thickness was 30 µm.[14] [15] A class II temporary resin-branded TEMP resin (Sernetek, İzmir, Turkey) was used with recommended printing and post-curing parameters by the manufacturer.

After cleaning and drying the restorations, scan spray was applied. Then the whole crown surfaces, that is, external surface, intaglio surface, and marginal area of the 20 provisional crowns were scanned using a dental laboratory scanner AutoScan-DS-MIX (Shining 3D) from multiple directions and saved as STL files. Thus, the files were divided into two groups, a group scanned from crowns that were printed with a horizontal resolution of a 52-µm printer (52-HRPPC) and a group scanned from the crowns that were printed with a horizontal resolution of a 22-µm printer (22-HRPPC). These two groups were called the 52-HRPPC group and the 22-HRPPC group, respectively. After each scan, the calibration test was performed before new scans. The unnecessary parts of the support during scanning were deleted. All these processes were performed by the same operator with 3 years of experience.

The STL files (10 per group) exported from these optical scans were then compared with the CAD reference model design file to evaluate trueness using 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems, Morrisville, North Carolina, United States).[16] [17] Each test model file was directly superimposed on the reference model file using the best-fitting alignment method. Each crown was divided into three parts including the intaglio surface, external surface, and marginal area. Then, the dimensional difference between the test model and the reference model was evaluated for each part. The root mean square (RMS) value was used to assess the trueness of the interim crowns according to the following formula[18] [19]:

For each comparison, n is the total number of all data points measured, and X _1,i and X _2,i are the coordinates at point i in the reference data and test data, respectively. RMS is the common value used in evaluation of the trueness and precision of protheses and copings.[2] [20] [21] A higher RMS value indicates lower 3D trueness. Finally, to visualize the deviation analysis, colorimetric maps were generated to illustrate 3D deviation with a range from –100 µm (blue) to +100 µm (red) and a tolerance range of ± 10 µm. In the colorimetric maps, the green range represents the allowable deviation, while the red portions illustrate positive deviation, meaning the printed provisional crown dimension was larger than the reference CAD dimension, and the blue areas represent negative deviation, indicating that the printed crown dimension was smaller than the reference CAD dimension.

After obtaining the trueness assessment, 20 removable dies of the prepared abutment were printed with the corresponding printer. The provisional crowns were placed on the dies and examined by two calibrated prosthodontists under magnifying glasses for evaluation of marginal adaptation using the same method as that of Lerner et al.[16] The score of each assessment was graded from 5 (excellent) to 1 (very poor). Three days before the real examination, the two prosthodontists were calibrated with 20 dies and 20 corresponding crowns. First, the prosthodontists made the examination separately. Any discrepancy cases were discussed until getting a 100% consensus. The calibration was repeated with the same crowns and dies in the next 2 days until reaching 100% consistency. However, since any discussion has not been done in the real examination, the scores from both examiners were collected separately and analyzed.

All data analyses were performed using a statistical software package (IBM SPSS Statistics v23.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, New York, United States). First, the normal distribution of the data was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The differences between the two groups were analyzed using independent sample t-test (α = 0.05).

Results

The trueness of the provisional crowns was evaluated according to the horizontal resolution of the LCD printer. Two-sided sample t-test results of the RMS value of each crown surface were presented in [Table 1]. For all three assessed crown areas, the average RMS values of the 22-HRPPC group were lower than those of the 52-HRPPC group, but significant difference was found only in the marginal area (p = 0.008), which meant the trueness of the provisional crown's marginal area in the 22-HRPPC group was greater than that of the corresponding crown in the 52-HRPPC group (p = 0.008). In addition, the RMS value of the marginal area was lower than that of the external and intaglio surfaces.

Table 1 Trueness of different area of the provisional crown fabricated by 22- and 55-µm horizontal resolution printer

Area	52-HRPPC group (µm) RMS ± SD	22-HRPPC group (µm) RMS ± SD	90% CI of difference value (52-HRPPC – 22-HRPPC)	p
External	64.4 ± 11.3	59.0 ± 6.6	–4.1 to 15.0	0.204
Marginal	43.8 ± 10.3	32.4 ± 6.7	1.8–21.2	0.008[a]
Intaglio	59.0 ± 14.5	56.0 ± 7.1	–8.8 to 15.0	0.553

Abbreviations: 22-HRPPC, 22-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown; 52-HRPPC, 52-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown; CI, confidence interval; RMS, root mean square; SD standard deviation.

^a p < 0.05.

In the visual deviation analysis, the deviation results of the external surface of the two groups are illustrated in [Fig. 2], with high positive values in the occlusal pits and fissures. In contrast, the external axial surfaces showed negative values in both groups. [Fig. 3] displays the deviation results of the marginal area and the intaglio surfaces of the two groups in which the axial intaglio surfaces reveal positive values, the center of the occlusal intaglio surfaces represents allowable deviation, and the marginal area represents both positive and negative values with small magnitude illustrated by light color range.

Fig. 2 Colorimetric maps show deviation values (mm) in the external surfaces of the two groups. Green area indicates good trueness, red or yellow area illustrates positive error, blue area illustrates negative error.

Fig. 3 Colorimetric maps represent deviation values (mm) in the marginal area and intaglio surfaces of the two groups. The green area indicates good trueness, the red or yellow area illustrates positive error, and the blue area illustrates negative error.

On visual inspection, the crowns printed with a 22-µm horizontal resolution printer have smoother surface and less grainy lines than that of the crowns manufactured with a 52-µm horizontal resolution printer ([Fig. 4]).

Fig. 4 Photographs of provisional crown printed with (A) a 52-µm horizontal resolution and (B) a 22-µm horizontal resolution 3D printer.

The results of the marginal adaptation evaluation by two different prosthodontists are described in [Table 2]. Both groups had high scores (4.9 ± 0.29 in the 22-HRPPC group and 4.4 ± 0.72 in the 52-HRPPC group) indicating great actual marginal adaptation of both printed provisional crowns ([Fig. 5]). These two-sided sample t-test results indicated that the marginal closure of the 22-HRPPC group was significantly higher than that of the 52-HRPPC group with prosthodontist 1's evaluation (p < 0.05) and overall evaluation (p < 0.01).

Fig. 5 Evaluation of marginal adaptation of provisional crowns placed on removable dies.

Table 2 Evaluation of the marginal adaptation of the provisional crowns fabricated by 22- and 55-µm horizontal resolution printer

	Prosthodontist 1	Prosthodontist 2	Overall
22-HRPPC group	4.9 ± 0.32	4.9 ± 0.32	4.9 ± 0.29
52-HRPPC group	4.3 ± 0.82	4.5 ± 0.71	4.4 ± 0.72
p	0.045[a]	0.12	0.0092[a]

Abbreviations: 22-HRPPC, 22-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown; 52-HRPPC, 52-µm horizontal resolution printer provisional crown.

^a p < 0.05.

Discussion

In this study, the trueness and marginal adaptation of provisional crowns manufactured with LCD printing method were examined according to different horizontal resolutions of 3D printers. Based on the results, the research null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that the trueness of the provisional crown's marginal area and the actual marginal adaptation were affected by the printer's horizontal resolution. In general, current printers used in dentistry had various horizontal resolutions ranging from 25 to 65 µm.[22] In this in vitro study, two printers manufactured by the same company with horizontal resolutions of 22 and 52 µm were selected for comparison.

Instead of measuring the gap between the crown and the prepared tooth, we examined the trueness of the crown indirectly by comparing the reverse engineering version of the 3D printed crowns with the original CAD file. The advantage of this method over the silicone replica technique was the simplicity without wasting impression material or requiring microscope and the ability to evaluate the trueness of the external surface of the crown.[23] [24] Furthermore, the generated colorimetric maps illustrated the amount of deviation between the crowns and the reference CAD file in the entire crown surfaces. However, some errors may occur during printing; support removing, scanning, spraying, and even best-fitting alignment in the inspection software; and the total errors may affect the results.[25] Hence, actual marginal adaptation of provisional crowns was evaluated by placing them on printed removable dies and performing assessment by two different experienced prosthodontists to support the results of the trueness evaluation.

To minimize printing variables, the build orientation was 180 degrees with identical supports attached to the occlusal surface, and the layer thickness was set to 30 µm for all provisional crowns.[26] [27] The laboratory scanner equipped with blue light technology has the accuracy of 7 µm; hence, the scanning error was minimal.[28] The provisional crown surfaces were also coated with an antireflection substance (IP Scan Spray, IP-Division, Haimhausen, Germany) before taking the optical impression to reduce errors due to light reflection. The thickness of this scan spray is only 2 µm according to the manufacturer, so it may have negligible effect on the scanning accuracy.[29] [30] [31] The areas where printing and scanning supports were placed were not selected to calculate the RMS value.

According to the results, the trueness of the marginal area was higher than that of the other surfaces in both groups. The reason may be that the marginal area was the last formed layers so it is adequately supported by previous printing layers. Furthermore, this area was superficial so it could be accurately acquired during scan. In contrast, the external surface, especially the occlusal surface, had many printing supports and these supports may affect the crown accuracy during removal. Also, due to the building angle, the first printing layers were located on the occlusal surface and these layers were insufficiently supported, affecting the trueness. The high RMS value of the intaglio surface may have resulted from the errors during scan since the crown walls interfere with the light from the scanner toward the axial portion and the junction between the axial portion and the occlusal portion of the intaglio surface. However, an exception occurred in the center of the occlusal intaglio surface, which had allowable deviation as indicated on the colorimetric maps. Less scanning light interference in this portion may be the reason for the exception.

In the present study, the average RMS value of all crown surfaces in both groups was within 100 µm, which was consistent with other studies' results.[2] [7] This 100-µm limit was required for accurate fit of the restoration.[32] Both crown groups had high scores of marginal adaptation quality, which was evaluated by two experienced prosthodontists. The provisional crowns manufactured with smaller horizontal pixel size of the printer had a smoother surface, higher marginal area trueness, and better marginal closure. Currently, there are many 3D printers with different horizontal resolution on the market. The results of this study may be used as a reference for dentists in choosing a suitable printer with good horizontal resolution for making interim crowns. However, the fit of the provisional crown may be affected by other morphological factors; so future studies should be performed to measure marginal and internal gaps.[33]

This study has several limitations. First, the steps of making a stone die and converting it to a digital die may have errors, so the high trueness printed provisional crown may still not have the perfect fit with the real abutment tooth. Second, only LCD 3D printing was used, and only one printing material and printers from only one company were considered. Hence, more studies should evaluate the trueness of provisional crowns manufactured by the SLA and DLP methods with different printing materials according to the horizontal resolution of the printer. Also, the actual marginal adaptation should be evaluated under a microscope for a more significant result. Furthermore, in vivo studies in the oral cavity should be conducted to confirm the marginal fit, proper contour, and occlusal as well as proximal contacts. Nonetheless, this work has shown that more trueness of the provisional crown's marginal area could be achieved with better horizontal resolution of the 3D printer.

Conclusion

Considering the limitations of the present in vitro study, it can be concluded that the trueness of the provisional crown marginal area and the marginal adaptation was influenced by the horizontal resolution of the 3D printer. For improved marginal area trueness and marginal adaptation of provisional crown, a printer with a higher horizontal pixel density should be selected over a printer with a lower density.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Note

The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors. The data presented in this study are available on request from Dr. Nguyen Viet Anh at [e-mail].

• References

• 1 Cheng CW, Ye SY, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P, Ko CC. Randomized clinical trial of a conventional and a digital workflow for the fabrication of interim crowns: an evaluation of treatment efficiency, fit, and the effect of clinician experience. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (01) 73-81
• 2 Lee BI, You SG, You SM, Kim DY, Kim JH. Evaluating the accuracy (trueness and precision) of interim crowns manufactured using digital light processing according to post-curing time: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2021; 13 (02) 89-99
• 3 Wu J, Xie H, Sadr A, Chung KH. Evaluation of internal fit and marginal adaptation of provisional crowns fabricated with three different techniques. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21 (03) 740
• 4 Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997; 13 (04) 258-269
• 5 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Walter RD. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2022: 439 ;480
• 6 Peng CC, Chung KH, Yau HT, Ramos Jr V. Assessment of the internal fit and marginal integrity of interim crowns made by different manufacturing methods. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (03) 514-522
• 7 Yu BY, Son K, Lee KB. Evaluation of intaglio surface trueness and margin quality of interim crowns in accordance with the build angle of stereolithography apparatus 3-dimensional printing. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126 (02) 231-237
• 8 Ahn JJ, Bae EB, Lee JJ. et al. Clinical evaluation of the fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with three different CAD-CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 127 (02) 239-247
• 9 Baba NZ, Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Müller F, Wagner S. CAD/CAM complete denture systems and physical properties: a review of the literature. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (S2): 113-124
• 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 (08) 983
• 11 Nulty A. A comparison of trueness and precision of 12 3D printers used in dentistry. BDJ Open 2022; 8 (01) 14
• 12 Bosch G, Ender A, Mehl A. A 3-dimensional accuracy analysis of chairside CAD/CAM milling processes. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (06) 1425-1431
• 13 Wang W, Yu H, Liu Y, Jiang X, Gao B. Trueness analysis of zirconia crowns fabricated with 3-dimensional printing. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (02) 285-291
• 14 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 (05) 503-510
• 15 Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology?. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30 (02) 182-188
• 16 Lerner H, Nagy K, Pranno N, Zarone F, Admakin O, Mangano F. Trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns: an in vitro study. J Dent 2021; 113: 103792
• 17 Kim CM, Kim SR, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Trueness of milled prostheses according to number of ball-end mill burs. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (05) 624-629
• 18 Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (03) 320-326
• 19 Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M. et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24 (01) 85-94
• 20 Moldovan O, Luthardt RG, Corcodel N, Rudolph H. Three-dimensional fit of CAD/CAM-made zirconia copings. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (12) 1273-1278
• 21 Kim CM, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the reproducibility of presintered zirconia single copings fabricated with the subtractive method. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116 (02) 237-241
• 22 Etemad-Shahidi Y, Qallandar OB, Evenden J, Alifui-Segbaya F, Ahmed KE. Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (10) 3357
• 23 Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84 (04) 419-424
• 24 Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G. Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns: validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35 (02) 116-122
• 25 Michaeli JG, DeGroff MC, Roxas RC. Error aggregation in the reengineering process from 3D scanning to printing. Scanning 2017; 2017: 1218541
• 26 Park GS, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Seo DG. Effects of printing parameters on the fit of implant-supported 3d printing resin prosthetics. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (16) 2533
• 27 Ryu JE, Kim YL, Kong HJ, Chang HS, Jung JH. Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed provisional crowns according to build directions. J Adv Prosthodont 2020; 12 (04) 225-232
• 28 Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (05) 581-588
• 29 Kang SY, Park JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Three-dimensional trueness analysis of ceramic crowns fabricated using a chairside computer-aided design/manufacturing system: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (02) 152-158
• 30 Kurbad A. The optical conditioning of Cerec preparations with scan spray. Int J Comput Dent 2000; 3 (04) 269-279
• 31 Oh HS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB, Baek YW. Influence of scanning-aid materials on the accuracy and time efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch digital scanning: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel) 2021; 14 (09) 2340
• 32 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (03) 313-320
• 33 Katheng A, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Minakuchi S. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and degree of polymerization of stereolithography photopolymer resin under different postpolymerization conditions: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (04) 695-702

Publication History

Article published online:
30 March 2023