Effect of print layer height on the accuracy and fit of the rapid-prototyped retainers

ABSTRACT Introduction: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the accuracy and fit of rapid-prototyped clear retainers printed at two different layer heights (100 µm and 50 µm) using a low-force stereolithography (LFS) 3D printer. Methods: Forty-two retainers were digitally designed using Maestro 3D Dental computer aided designing (CAD) software (AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy) and rapid prototyped using an LFS printer (Formlabs Inc, Somerville, MA, USA). Half of the retainers (21) were printed at 50 µm layer height and other half at 100 µm. To assess the dimensional accuracy, linear measurements were taken from the 3D printed retainers using digital caliper (accurate to 0.01 mm) and from the digitally designed retainers using Maestro 3D Dental Studio software. The fit of the retainers was further evaluated with a scanning electron microscope. Accuracy was compared across three groups-digitally designed retainers, and those printed at 50 µm and 100 µm layer height using ANOVA/Kruskal‒Wallis tests. The reliability and internal consistency of the linear measurements were evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC with 95% CI) and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Paired t-tests were used to compare the fit of rapid prototyped retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights. Additionally, the printing time for each retainer was recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p value > 0.05) between the accuracy of 3D-printed retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights with a high reliability (ICC>0.9) and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha>0.9). For comparative evaluation of the fit, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was observed among the retainers printed at 50 µm and 100 µm layer heights, except at the labio-gingival border and at the middle of the incisal edge of the central incisor. Time required for printing retainers at 50 µm is more than that of 100 µm layer height. Conclusion: Both rapid-prototyped retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights were found to be accurate for clinical use when compared to reference digital retainers with acceptable fit. As the time required for printing retainers at 100 µm is less than that of 50 µm layer height, it is better to use 100 µm layer height for rapid prototyping of the retainers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.30.4.e2524250.oar
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of print layer height on the accuracy and fit of the rapid-prototyped retainers

Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari, Ritu Duggal, Vilas D. Samrit, Pratyush Gupta
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Dental materials and restorations
article

Effect of print layer height on the accuracy and fit of the rapid-prototyped retainers

Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari, Ritu Duggal, Vilas D. Samrit, Pratyush Gupta
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the accuracy and fit of rapid-prototyped clear retainers printed at two different layer heights (100 µm and 50 µm) using a low-force stereolithography (LFS) 3D printer. Methods: Forty-two retainers were digitally designed using Maestro 3D Dental computer aided designing (CAD) software (AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy) and rapid prototyped using an LFS printer (Formlabs Inc, Somerville, MA, USA). Half of the retainers (21) were printed at 50 µm layer height and other half at 100 µm. To assess the dimensional accuracy, linear measurements were taken from the 3D printed retainers using digital caliper (accurate to 0.01 mm) and from the digitally designed retainers using Maestro 3D Dental Studio software. The fit of the retainers was further evaluated with a scanning electron microscope. Accuracy was compared across three groups-digitally designed retainers, and those printed at 50 µm and 100 µm layer height using ANOVA/Kruskal‒Wallis tests. The reliability and internal consistency of the linear measurements were evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC with 95% CI) and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Paired t-tests were used to compare the fit of rapid prototyped retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights. Additionally, the printing time for each retainer was recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p value > 0.05) between the accuracy of 3D-printed retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights with a high reliability (ICC>0.9) and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha>0.9). For comparative evaluation of the fit, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was observed among the retainers printed at 50 µm and 100 µm layer heights, except at the labio-gingival border and at the middle of the incisal edge of the central incisor. Time required for printing retainers at 50 µm is more than that of 100 µm layer height. Conclusion: Both rapid-prototyped retainers printed at 100 µm and 50 µm layer heights were found to be accurate for clinical use when compared to reference digital retainers with acceptable fit. As the time required for printing retainers at 100 µm is less than that of 50 µm layer height, it is better to use 100 µm layer height for rapid prototyping of the retainers.

Dental Press Journal of OrthodonticsVol. 30(4)
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.