Cargando…
Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software
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 investiga...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10529710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37754336 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11090216 |
_version_ | 1785111423866634240 |
---|---|
author | Abad-Coronel, Cristian Pazán, Doménica Patricia Hidalgo, Lorena Larriva Loyola, Jaime |
author_facet | Abad-Coronel, Cristian Pazán, Doménica Patricia Hidalgo, Lorena Larriva Loyola, Jaime |
author_sort | Abad-Coronel, Cristian |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10529710 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105297102023-09-28 Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software Abad-Coronel, Cristian Pazán, Doménica Patricia Hidalgo, Lorena Larriva Loyola, Jaime Dent J (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2023-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10529710/ /pubmed/37754336 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11090216 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Abad-Coronel, Cristian Pazán, Doménica Patricia Hidalgo, Lorena Larriva Loyola, Jaime Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title | Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title_full | Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title_short | Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software |
title_sort | comparative analysis between 3d-printed models designed with generic and dental-specific software |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10529710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37754336 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11090216 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abadcoronelcristian comparativeanalysisbetween3dprintedmodelsdesignedwithgenericanddentalspecificsoftware AT pazandomenicapatricia comparativeanalysisbetween3dprintedmodelsdesignedwithgenericanddentalspecificsoftware AT hidalgolorena comparativeanalysisbetween3dprintedmodelsdesignedwithgenericanddentalspecificsoftware AT larrivaloyolajaime comparativeanalysisbetween3dprintedmodelsdesignedwithgenericanddentalspecificsoftware |