No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of rinsing solvents, namely isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether (TPM), and rinsing times (5-, 7-, 9-, and 11-minutes) for the postprocessing procedures on the manufacturing accuracy of an additively manufactured dental model resin material. Material and Methods: The standard tessellation language (STL file) of the digital design of a bar (15 mm × 4 mm × 3 mm) was obtained. A resin dental material (E-Model Light; Envisiontec, Dearborn, MI) and a 3D printer (VIDA HD; Envisiontec) was selected to manufacture all the specimens using the STL file following the recommended printing parameters at a room temperature of 23°C. Two groups were generated based on the rinsing solvent used on the postprocessing procedures, namely isopropyl alcohol (IPA-group) and tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether (TPM-group). Each group was further divided into 4 subgroups (IPA-1 to IPA-4 and TPM-1 to TPM-4) depending on the rinsing time performed (5-, 7-, 9-, and 11minutes). Twenty specimens per subgroup were fabricated. The dimensions (length, width, and height) of all the specimens were measured using a low force digital caliper (Absolute Low Force Caliper Series 573; Mitutoyo, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa). Each measurement was performed 3 times and the mean value determined. The volume of each specimen was calculated using the formula V = l × w × h. Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05), followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.0018). Results: The IPA groups obtained significantly lower trueness and precision values compared with TPM groups (p < 0.0018). Among the IPA groups, IPA-1 subgroup obtained the highest trueness and precision values compared to the rest of the IPA subgroups. The TPM-1 and TPM-2 subgroups obtained the highest trueness and prevision values among the TPM group and among all the groups tested. No significant difference was found between the TMP-1 and TPM-2 subgroups (p > 0.0018). Conclusions: None of the manufacturing workflows tested were able to manufacture a perfect match of the bar virtual design dimensions. TPM solvent group obtained higher trueness and precision values compared to the IPA solvent group. The IPA-1 subgroup that replicated the manufacturer´s recommendations obtained the highest manufacturing accuracy among the IPA subgroup. TPM solvent used in a rinsing ultrasonic bath between 3 and 4 minutes followed by a second ultrasonic clean bath between 2 and 3 minutes of the just printed vat polymerized dental model specimens obtained the highest manufacturing accuracy values.