OBJECTIVES: To compare traditional plaster casts, digital models and 3D printed copies of dental plaster casts based on various criteria. To determine whether 3D printed copies obtained using open source system RepRap can replace traditional plaster casts in dental practice. To compare and contrast the qualities of two possible 3D printing options--source system RepRap and commercially available 3D printing. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: A method comparison study on 10 dental plaster casts from the Orthodontic department, Department of Stomatology, 2nd medical Faulty, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each of 10 plaster casts were scanned by inEos Blue scanner and the printed on 3D printer RepRap [10 models] and ProJet HD3000 3D printer [1 model]. Linear measurements between selected points on the dental arches of upper and lower jaws on plaster casts and its 3D copy were recorded and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: 3D printed copies have many advantages over traditional plaster casts. The precision and accuracy of the RepRap 3D printed copies of plaster casts were confirmed based on the statistical analysis. Although the commercially available 3D printing enables to print more details than the RepRap system, it is expensive and for the purpose of clinical use can be replaced by the cheaper prints obtained from RepRap printed copies. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning of the traditional plaster casts to obtain a digital model offers a pragmatic approach. The scans can subsequently be used as a template to print the plaster casts as required. Using 3D printers can replace traditional plaster casts primarily due to their accuracy and price.

Department of Stomatology 2nd Medical Faculty Charles University Prague 5 Uvalu 84 150 06 Prague 5 Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 2003;30(3):219–223. doi: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.219. PubMed DOI

Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:101–105. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5. PubMed DOI

McGuinness NJ, Stephens CD. Storage of orthodontic study models in hospital units in the U. K. Br J Orthod. 1992;19:227–232. PubMed

Kondo T, Ong SH, Foong KWC. Tooth segmentation of dental study models using range images. IEEE Transaction on Medical Imaging. 2004;23(3):350–362. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2004.824235. PubMed DOI

Chapuis J, Schramm A, Pappas I, Hallermann W, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Langlotz F, Caversaccio M. A new system for computer-aided preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation during corrective jaw Sumery. IEEE Transaction on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 2007;11(3):274–287. PubMed

Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:298–303. PubMed

Sohmura T, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K, Takahashi J. Use of an ultrahigh-speed laser scanner for constructing threedimensional shapes of dentition and occlusion. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:345–352. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2000.109786. PubMed DOI

Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod. 2001;71:351–357. PubMed

Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:301–306. PubMed

Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x. PubMed DOI

Garino F, Garino GB. Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod. 2002;3:250–254.

Leifert FM, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi JT. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:16.e1–16.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019. PubMed DOI

Whetten LJ, Williamson CP, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major P. Variations in orthodontic treatement planning decisions of Class II paients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:485–491. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.022. PubMed DOI

Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008;35:191–201. doi: 10.1179/146531207225022626. PubMed DOI

Zimmerman DW. A Note on Interpretation of the Paired-Samples t Test. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997;22(3):349–360.

Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley; 1980.

Lilliefors HW. On the Komogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J Am Stat Assoc. 1967;62:399–402. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916. DOI

Lilliefors HW. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the exponential distribution with mean unknown. J Am Stat Assoc. 1969;64:387–389. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1969.10500983. DOI

Box GEP. Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika. 1953;40(3/4):318–335. doi: 10.2307/2333350. DOI

Martinez WL, Martinez AR. Computational Statistics Handbook with MATLAB. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2008.

Motohashi N, Kuroda T. A 3D computer-aided design system applied to diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21:263–274. doi: 10.1093/ejo/21.3.263. PubMed DOI

Separation of overlapping dental arch objects using digital records of illuminated plaster casts

Evaluation of dental morphometrics during the orthodontic treatment