Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.269

Comparison of dimensional accuracy between direct-printed and thermoformed aligners  

Koenig, Nickolas (Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University)
Choi, Jin-Young (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
McCray, Julie (Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University)
Hayes, Andrew (Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University)
Schneider, Patricia (Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University)
Kim, Ki Beom (Department of Orthodontics, Saint Louis University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.52, no.4, 2022 , pp. 249-257 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional accuracy between thermoformed and direct-printed aligners. Methods: Three types of aligners were manufactured from the same reference standard tessellation language (STL) file: thermoformed aligners were manufactured using Zendura FLXTM (n = 12) and Essix ACETM (n = 12), and direct-printed aligners were printed using Tera HarzTM TC-85DAP 3D Printer UV Resin (n = 12). The teeth were not manipulated with any tooth-moving software in this study. The samples were sprayed with an opaque scanning spray, scanned, imported to Geomagic® Control XTM metrology software, and superimposed on the reference STL file by using the best-fit alignment algorithm. Distances between the aligner meshes and the reference STL file were measured at nine anatomical landmarks. Results: Mean absolute discrepancies in the Zendura FLXTM aligners ranged from 0.076 ± 0.057 mm to 0.260 ± 0.089 mm and those in the Essix ACETM aligners ranged from 0.188 ± 0.271 mm to 0.457 ± 0.350 mm, while in the direct-printed aligners, they ranged from 0.079 ± 0.054 mm to 0.224 ± 0.041 mm. Root mean square values, representing the overall trueness, ranged from 0.209 ± 0.094 mm for Essix ACETM, 0.188 ± 0.074 mm for Zendura FLXTM, and 0.140 ± 0.020 mm for the direct-printed aligners. Conclusions: This study showed greater trueness and precision of direct-printed aligners than thermoformed aligners.
Keywords
Aligner; Physical property; Resin; Three-dimensional scanner;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Chisari JR, McGorray SP, Nair M, Wheeler TT. Variables affecting orthodontic tooth movement with clear aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145(4 Suppl):S82-91.   DOI
2 Bowman SJ. Improving the predictability of clear aligners. Semin Orthod 2017;23:65-75.   DOI
3 Johal A, Sharma NR, McLaughlin K, Zou LF. The reliability of thermoform retainers: a laboratory-based comparative study. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:503-7.   DOI
4 Cole D, Bencharit S, Carrico CK, Arias A, Tufekci E. Evaluation of fit for 3D-printed retainers compared with thermoform retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;155:592-9.   DOI
5 Peters MC, Delong R, Pintado MR, Pallesen U, Qvist V, Douglas WH. Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear. J Dent 1999;27:479-85.   DOI
6 Nakano H, Kato R, Kakami C, Okamoto H, Mamada K, Maki K. Development of biocompatible resins for 3D printing of direct aligners. J Photopolym Sci Technol 2019;32:209-16.   DOI
7 Zinelis S, Panayi N, Polychronis G, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Comparative analysis of mechanical properties of orthodontic aligners produced by different contemporary 3D printers. Orthod Craniofac Res 2021. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12537. [Epub ahead of print]   DOI
8 Cho JH, Yoon HI, Han JS, Kim DJ. Trueness of the inner surface of monolithic crowns fabricated by milling of a fully sintered (Y, Nb)-TZP block in chairside CAD-CAM system for single-visit dentistry. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:3253.   DOI
9 Park ME, Shin SY. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:861.e1-861.e7.
10 Schuster S, Eliades G, Zinelis S, Eliades T, Bradley TG. Structural conformation and leaching from in vitro aged and retrieved Invisalign appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:725-8.   DOI
11 Eliades T, Pratsinis H, Athanasiou AE, Eliades G, Kletsas D. Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Invisalign appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:100-3.   DOI
12 Hahn W, Dathe H, Fialka-Fricke J, Fricke-Zech S, Zapf A, Kubein-Meesenburg D, et al. Influence of thermoplastic appliance thickness on the magnitude of force delivered to a maxillary central incisor during tipping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:12.e1-7; discussion 12-3.   DOI
13 Wheeler T. Invisalign clinical trials needed. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:527.   DOI
14 Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Maccarrone R, Bianchi A, Scalia S, Siciliani G. Optical properties of orthodontic aligners--spectrophotometry analysis of three types before and after aging. Prog Orthod 2015;16:41.   DOI
15 Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59: 236-42.   DOI
16 Kim KY, Ahn HW, Kim SH, Nelson G. Effects of a new type of clear overlay retainer on occlusal contacts. Korean J Orthod 2017;47:207-12.   DOI
17 Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2017;62 Suppl 1:58-62.   DOI
18 Jindal P, Juneja M, Siena FL, Bajaj D, Breedon P. Mechanical and geometric properties of thermoformed and 3D printed clear dental aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;156:694-701.   DOI
19 Wan Hassan WN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA. Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:209-18.   DOI
20 Mantovani E, Castroflorio E, Rossini G, Garino F, Cugliari G, Deregibus A, et al. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of aligner fit on teeth. Angle Orthod 2018;88:596-601.   DOI
21 Edelmann A, English JD, Chen SJ, Kasper FK. Analysis of the thickness of 3-dimensional-printed orthodontic aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:e91-8.   DOI
22 Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:144-53.   DOI
23 Qi HJ, Boyce MC. Stress-strain behavior of thermoplastic polyurethanes. Mech Mater 2005;37:817-39.   DOI
24 Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM. Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:276.e1-12; discussion 276-7.   DOI
25 Lombardo L, Palone M, Longo M, Arveda N, Nacucchi M, De Pascalis F, et al. MicroCT X-ray comparison of aligner gap and thickness of six brands of aligners: an in-vitro study. Prog Orthod 2020;21:12.   DOI
26 Holm C, Tidehag P, Tillberg A, Molin M. Longevity and quality of FPDs: a retrospective study of restorations 30, 20, and 10 years after insertion. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:283-9.
27 Brezniak N. The clear plastic appliance: a biomechanical point of view. Angle Orthod 2008;78:381-2.   DOI
28 Yamada J, Maeda Y. Thermoforming process for fabricating oral appliances: influence of heating and pressure application timing on formability. J Prosthodont 2007;16:452-6.   DOI
29 Unkovskiy A, Schmidt F, Beuer F, Li P, Spintzyk S, Kraemer Fernandez P. Stereolithography vs. direct light processing for rapid manufacturing of complete denture bases: an in vitro accuracy analysis. J Clin Med 2021;10:1070.   DOI
30 Ryokawa H, Miyazaki Y, Fujishima A, Miyazaki T, Maki K. The mechanical properties of dental thermoplastic materials in a simulated intraoral environment. Orthod Waves 2006;65:64-72.   DOI