Accuracy Evaluation of Additively and Subtractively Fabricated Palatal Plate Orthodontic Appliances for Newborns and Infants–An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Different approaches for digital workflows have already been presented for their use in palatal plates for newborns and infants. However, there is no evidence on the accuracy of CAD/CAM manufactured orthodontic appliances for this kind of application. This study evaluates trueness and precision provided by different CAM technologies and materials for these appliances. Samples of a standard palatal stimulation plate were manufactured using stereolithography (SLA), direct light processing (DLP) and subtractive manufacturing (SM). The effect of material (for SM) and layer thickness (for DLP) were also investigated. Specimens were digitized with a laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape) and analyzed with a 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems). For quantitative analysis, differences between 3D datasets were measured using root mean square (RMS) error values for trueness and precision. For qualitative analysis, color maps were generated to detect locations of deviations within each sample. SM showed higher trueness and precision than AM technologies. Reducing layer thickness in DLP did not significantly increase accuracy, but prolonged manufacturing time. All materials and technologies met the clinically acceptable range and are appropriate for their use. DLP with 100 µm layer thickness showed the highest efficiency, obtaining high trueness and precision within the lowest manufacturing time.

A Point-of-Care Digital Workflow for 3D Printed Passive Presurgical Orthopedic Plates in Cleft Care

“…The materials cost estimated in our exemplary case was 2 Euro for the presurgical plate and 3.5 Euro for the anatomical model. These piece costs were in the range of other groups using 3D printing in cleft care [ 26 ].…”

Three-Dimensional-Printed Customized Orthodontic and Pedodontic Appliances: A Critical Review of a New Era for Treatment

“…Patients with gag reflects can be a problem, while scanning is most of the time the solution. Newborn cleft patients can be scanned using small scanner tips, thus avoiding the dangerous alginate impressions which can be only taken in a hospital environment, often under sedation or general anesthesia [ 34 ]. However, at this point in time, materials to directly print NAM plates do not exist, therefore, the traditional way of manufacturing NAM plates follows scanning, dental model 3D printing, and then NAM manufacture.…”

Influence of digital implant analog design on the positional trueness of an analog in additively manufactured models: An in‐vitro study

“…In addition, previous studies on deviation analyses have also preferred the laboratory scanner used in the present study to generate master or test STL files. 7,[21][22][23][24] The rationale for using an IOS to digitize the MRM prior to DIM designs was to simulate a direct digital workflow. DIMs were fabricated by using a CLIPbased 3D printer, which is more laboratory-suited considering its cost.…”

“…20 A third-party SB (Elos Accurate Scan Body, IO 2B-B SA; Elos Medtech) was fixed to the implant analog with a screwdriver (Elos Accurate Screwdriver Manual Short 0.9 Hex; Elos Medtech, Göteborg, Sweden) and tightened with a torque wrench (Nobel Biocare Prosthetic Manual Torque Wrench; Nobel Biocare) at 5 Ncm. MRM was then digitized by using a laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000; 3Shape), 7,[21][22][23][24] which has an accuracy of 5 μm 25 to generate the standard tessellation language (STL) file of the MRM (M0). M0 file was used to fabricate custom impression trays for conventional closed-tray implant impressions.…”