Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

Abstract

With the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use. Methods: A typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method. Results: There were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender–InLAB), obtained the highest average (−0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819). Conclusion: Although no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.

The flexural strength of 3D-printed provisional restorations fabricated with different resins: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Similarly, no statistically significant differences were observed among the four software types analyzed using the DLP printer. Nevertheless, a group comprising the amalgamation of D-CAD (Blender–InLAB) exhibited the highest average (− 0.0324 SD = 0.0456), demonstrating superior accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (consisting of the Meshmixer and Blender models), which included generic and specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819) [ 48 ]. Furthermore, DLP printers showed a notable advantage over LCD printers in another study, displaying lower RMS values and less shrinkage in 5-unit and full-arch cases.…”

The Influence of Dental Virtualization, Restoration Types, and Placement Angles on the Trueness and Contact Space in 3D-Printed Crowns: A Comprehensive Exploration

“…The next step is to discuss the technology of digital production and optimize the digital process. This comprehensive exploration encompasses topics such as fixed dentures, complete dentures [2], dental software [3], material mechanics [4], and related subjects. In the past, dental restorations were manually crafted by dental technicians [5].…”