Evaluating the accuracy between hollow and solid dental aligner models: a comparative study of printing technologies
, , and
Sep 24, 2024
About this article
Published Online: Sep 24, 2024
Page range: 51 - 62
Received: Apr 01, 2024
Accepted: Aug 01, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2024-0023
Keywords
© 2024 Ebru Yurdakurban et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Comparisons of Canine-Premolar Regions RMS values
Canine-Premolar Region (Right) | Canine-Premolar Region (Left) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | ||||||
Designs | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Post-hoc1 | Designs | Mean±SD | Mean±SD | Mean±SD | p1 | Post Hoc1 | |
1 mmA (n = 10) | 0.1 ±0.02 | 0.15 ±0.09 | 0.16 ±0.10 | 0.238 | — | 1 mmA (n=10) | 0.3 ±0.15 | 0.14 ± 0.1 1 | 0.41 ±0.19 | 0.002 | 2-3 |
2 mmB (n = 10) | 0.08 ±0.01 | 0.06 ±0.01 | 0.14 ±0.06 | 0.002 | 1-2 |
2 mmB (n=10) | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.001 | 1-2 |
3 mnC (n = 10) | 0.07 ±0.03 | 0.05±<0.01 | 0.10 ±0.03 | 0.008 | 2-3 |
3 mmC (n=10) | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.05±<0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n = 10) | 0.07 ±0.01 | 0.05 ±0.01 | 0.05 ±0.01 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n=10) | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05±<0.0l | <0.001 | 1-2 |
p2 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.001 | p2 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Post-hoc2 | A-C |
A-B |
A-D |
Post-hoc2 | A-B |
A-B |
A-B |
||||
A-C |
A-C |
A-C |
A-C |
||||||||
A-D |
A-D |
A-D |
A-D |
Comparisons of Molar Regions RMS values
Molar Region (Right) | Molar Region (Left) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | ||||||
Designs | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Post-hoc1 | Designs | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Post-hoc1 | ||
1 mmA (n = 10) | 0.17 ±0.02 | 0.36 ± 0.26 | 0.41 ±0.13 | 0.033 | 1-3 |
1 mmA (n=10) | 0.72 ± 0.30 | 0.26 ±0.18 | 0.90 ±0.35 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
2 mmB (n = 10) | 0.16 ±0.04 | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.08 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
2 mmB (n=10) | 0.52 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ±0,03 | 0.41 ±0.13 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
3 mmC (n = 10) | 0.15 ±0.06 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.26 | 0.028 | 1-2 |
3 mmC (n=10) | 0.34 ± 0.05 | 0.08 ±0.01 | 0.27 ±0.05 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n = 10) | 0.13 ±0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n=10) | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ±0.01 | 0.13 ±0.01 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
p2 | 0.143 | <0.001 | <0.001 | p2 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Post-hoc2 | A-C |
A-B |
A-D |
Post-hoc2 | A-B |
A-B |
A-B |
||||
A-C |
A-C |
A-C |
A-D |
||||||||
A-D |
A-D |
A-D |
Comparisons of Total Arch RMS values
DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Designs | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Post-hoc1 | |
1 mmA (n = 10) | 0.36 ± 0.14 | 0.29 ± 0.13 | 0.57 ± 0.15 | 0.001 | 2-3 |
2 mmB (n = 10) | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.002 | 1-2 |
3 mmC (n = 10) | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n=10) | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | 1-3 |
p2 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
Post-hoc2 | A-B |
A-B |
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 Designs | DLP | Polyjet | SLA |
---|---|---|---|
1 mm | 70.8% | 37.4% | 57.3% |
2 mm | 45.3% | 26.8% | 39.7% |
3 mm | 31.4% | 15.5% | 26.5% |
Comparisons of Anterior Region RMS values
DLP1 | Polyjet2 | SLA3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Designs | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Post-hoc1 | |
1 mmA (n = 10) | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.040 | >0.05 |
2 mmB (n = 10) | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | 1-3 |
3 mmC (n = 10) | 0.06 ± <0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.002 | 1-2 |
SolidD (n = 10) | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.04±<0.01 | <0.001 | 1-2 |
p2 | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.001 | ||
Post-hoc2 | A-D |
A-B |
A-B |
||
A-D |
A-D |
||||
B-D |