Impressions based on Ultrafast Optical Sectioning technology can be used for manufacturing ceramic crowns in a normal workflow, with the same results as silicone conventional impressions.

Digital intraoral impressions can be used for manufacturing ceramic crowns, with the same or better clinical results as conventional impressions.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of printed models using five different industrial and dental desktop 3D printers. Materials and methods Full-arch digital models with scanbodies of 15 patients were printed with five different 3D printers. The industrial printers were 3D system Project MJP2500 (3DS) and Objet30 OrthoDesk (Obj). The dental desktop printers were NextDent 5100 (ND), Formlabs Form 2 (FL) and Rapidshape D30 (RS). A total of 225 printed models were analysed. The printed models were digitized and compared with the reference cast model using the Control X software (Geomagic). The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey test were performed (α = 0.05). Results The one-way ANOVA for the trueness and precision of the printed model presented the best results for the 3DS, followed by ND, Obj, FL and RS (P < 0.01). In the scanbody zone, the best results were for the 3DS group, followed by Obj, ND, FL and RS (P < 0.01). Comparing the technologies, the Multijet technology used in industrial printers presented better results than the DLP and SLA technologies used in dental desktop printers (P > 0.01). Conclusions There were statistically significant differences in terms of the accuracy of the printed models, with better results for the industrial than the dental desktop 3D printers. Clinical relevance The industrial 3D printers used in dental laboratories presented better accuracy than the in-office dental desktop 3D printers, and this should be considered when the best accuracy is needed to perform final prosthetic restorations.

No abstract