Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluating the accuracy between hollow and solid dental aligner models: a comparative study of printing technologies Cover

Evaluating the accuracy between hollow and solid dental aligner models: a comparative study of printing technologies

Australasian Orthodontic Journal
Volume 40 (2024): Issue 2 (July 2024)
By:
Open Access
|Sep 2024

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

The flow chart of the study.
The flow chart of the study.

Figure 2.

Hollow designs with (A) 1 mm, (B) 2 mm, (C) 3 mm shell thickness and (D) Solid design.
Hollow designs with (A) 1 mm, (B) 2 mm, (C) 3 mm shell thickness and (D) Solid design.

Figure 3.

Dividing of the reference model into 5 different regions. (a) Molar Region (Right): right first and second molar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (b) Canine-Premolars Region (Right): right canine and premolar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (c) Anterior Region: right and left central and lateral teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (d) Canine-Premolar Region (Left): left canine and premolar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (e) Molar Region (Left): left first and second molar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area.
Dividing of the reference model into 5 different regions. (a) Molar Region (Right): right first and second molar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (b) Canine-Premolars Region (Right): right canine and premolar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (c) Anterior Region: right and left central and lateral teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (d) Canine-Premolar Region (Left): left canine and premolar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area. (e) Molar Region (Left): left first and second molar teeth, palatal and buccal gingival area.

Figure 4.

Superimposition of reference and test model.
Superimposition of reference and test model.

Comparisons of Canine-Premolar Regions RMS values

Canine-Premolar Region (Right)Canine-Premolar Region (Left)
DLP1Polyjet2SLA3 DLP1Polyjet2SLA3
DesignsMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDp1Post-hoc1DesignsMean±SDMean±SDMean±SDp1Post Hoc1
1 mmA (n = 10)0.1 ±0.020.15 ±0.090.16 ±0.100.238—1 mmA (n=10)0.3 ±0.150.14 ± 0.1 10.41 ±0.190.0022-3**
2 mmB (n = 10)0.08 ±0.010.06 ±0.010.14 ±0.060.0021-2* 1-3* 2-3*2 mmB (n=10)0.16 ± 0.030.06 ± 0.010.15 ± 0.050.0011-2** 1-3* 2-3*
3 mnC (n = 10)0.07 ±0.030.05±<0.010.10 ±0.030.0082-3**3 mmC (n=10)0.09 ± 0.020.05±<0.010.08 ± 0.01<0.0011-2** 2-3**
SolidD (n = 10)0.07 ±0.010.05 ±0.010.05 ±0.01<0.0011-2*** 1-3***SolidD (n=10)0.06 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.010.05±<0.0l<0.0011-2** 1-3**
p20.003<0.0010.001 p2<0.0010.001<0.001
Post-hoc2A-C* A-D**A-B**A-D** B-D* Post-hoc2A-B*A-B**A-B**
A-C*** A-C***A-C**A-C**
A-D*** A-D*** B-D*A-D**A-D**

Comparisons of Molar Regions RMS values

Molar Region (Right)Molar Region (Left)
DLP1Polyjet2SLA3 DLP1Polyjet2SLA3
DesignsMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDp1Post-hoc1DesignsMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDp1Post-hoc1
1 mmA (n = 10)0.17 ±0.020.36 ± 0.260.41 ±0.130.0331-3**1 mmA (n=10)0.72 ± 0.300.26 ±0.180.90 ±0.35<0.0011-2** 2-3**
2 mmB (n = 10)0.16 ±0.040.10 ± 0.040.35 ± 0.08<0.0011-2**, 1-3*** 2-3***2 mmB (n=10)0.52 ± 0.060.10 ±0,030.41 ±0.13<0.0011-2*** 2-3***
3 mmC (n = 10)0.15 ±0.060.07 ± 0.010.32 ± 0.260.0281-2* 2-3*3 mmC (n=10)0.34 ± 0.050.08 ±0.010.27 ±0.05<0.0011-2*** 1-3* 2-3***
SolidD (n = 10)0.13 ±0.020.06 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.01<0.0011-2*** 2-3***SolidD (n=10)0.25 ± 0.020.05 ±0.010.13 ±0.01<0.0011-2*** 1-3*** 2-3***
p20.143<0.001<0.001 p2<0.001<0.001<0.001
Post-hoc2A-C* A-D**A-B**A-D** B-D* Post-hoc2A-B*A-B**A-B** A-C**
A-C*** A-C***A-C**A-D**
A-D*** A-D*** B-D*A-D**

Comparisons of Total Arch RMS values

DLP1Polyjet2SLA3
DesignsMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDp1Post-hoc1
1 mmA (n = 10)0.36 ± 0.140.29 ± 0.130.57 ± 0.150.0012-3*
2 mmB (n = 10)0.26 ± 0.040.18 ± 0.070.34 ± 0.060.0021-2* 1-3* 2-3*
3 mmC (n = 10)0.21 ± 0.040.13 ± 0.060.24 ± 0.05<0.0011-2** 2-3**
SolidD (n=10)0.09 ± 0.010.08 ± 0.030.14 ± 0.01<0.0011-3*** 2-3*
p2<0.001<0.001<0.001
Post-hoc2A-B*, A-C***A-B*, A-C***A-B***
A-D***A-D***A-C***
B-D***B-D *A-D***
C-D*** B-D***

Percentages of resin amounts to be saved by using hollow models instead of solid models

Hollow DesignsDLPPolyjetSLA
1 mm70.8%37.4%57.3%
2 mm45.3%26.8%39.7%
3 mm31.4%15.5%26.5%

Comparisons of Anterior Region RMS values

DLP1Polyjet2SLA3
DesignsMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDp1Post-hoc1
1 mmA (n = 10)0.08 ± 0.040.10 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.030.040>0.05
2 mmB (n = 10)0.06 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.010.09 ± 0.02<0.0011-3*** 2-3*
3 mmC (n = 10)0.06 ± <0.010.06 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.010.0021-2** 1-3** 2-3**
SolidD (n = 10)0.05 ± 0.010.06 ± 0.010.04±<0.01<0.0011-2** 1-3** 2-3**
p20.003<0.0010.001
Post-hoc2A-D**A-B***, A-C***A-B**, A-C***
A-D***A-D***, B-C*
B-D***, C-D**
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2024-0023 | Journal eISSN: 2207-7480 | Journal ISSN: 2207-7472
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 51 - 62
Submitted on: Apr 1, 2024
Accepted on: Aug 1, 2024
Published on: Sep 24, 2024
Published by: Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Basic medical science,
Basic medical science, other

© 2024 Ebru Yurdakurban, Kübra Gülnur Topsakal, Gökhan Serhat Duran, Serkan Görgülü, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 40 (2024): Issue 2 (July 2024)Next article