4.0 Article

A study on the machining accuracy of dental digital method focusing on dental inlay

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 321-327

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD PROSTHODONTICS
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.321

Keywords

Additive manufacturing; Subtractive manufacturing; Three-dimensional analysis; Inlay

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Ministry of Education [2017R1D1A1B03035688]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [2018R1A5A7023490]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the cutting method and the lamination method to investigate whether the CAD data of the proposed inlay shape are machined correctly. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Mesial-Occlusal shape of the inlay was modeled by changing the stereolithography (STL). Each group used SLS (metal powder) or SLA (photocurable resin) in the additive method, and wax or zirconia in the subtractive method (n=10 per group, total n=40). Three-dimensional (3D) analysis program (Geomagic Control X inspection software; 3D systems) was used for the alignment and analysis. The root mean square (RMS) in the 2D plane state was measured within 50 mu m radius of eight comparison measuring points (CMP). Differences were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey's test were used (alpha=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference in RMS only in SLA and SLS of 2D section (P<.05). In CMP mean, CMP 4 (-5.3 +/- 46.7 mu m) had a value closest to 0, while CMP 6 (20.1 +/- 42.4 mu m) and CMP 1 (-89.2 +/- 61.4 mu m) had the greatest positive value and the greatest negative value, respectively. CONCLUSION. Since the errors obtained from the study do not exceed the clinically acceptable values, the lamination method and the cutting method can be used clinically.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available