Although 3D-printing technology offers a relatively inexpensive, rapid and less risky route of manufacturing, it is still quite limited for the fabrication of more complex objects. Over the past three decades, additive manufacturing has changed from an innovative technology to an increasingly accessible tool in all aspects of different medical practices, including orthopedics. Within the limitations of this report, we concluded that surface roughness differences existed between 3D-printed aligners and Invisalign® in the retrieved status, as well as between the control and retrieved 3D-printed groups. Significant differences were detected in the retrieved 3D-printed aligners compared to Invisalign® retrieved, with the exception of Sz. Intra-oral exposure of 3D-printed aligners was significantly associated with increase in all tested parameters (P < 0.001 at all occasions). Descriptive statistics and quantile regression modeling were conducted, and the level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. ![]() ![]() ![]() Optical profilometry was employed to examine the following surface roughness parameters: amplitude parameters Sa, Sq and Sz and functional parameters Sc and Sv. A similar number of 'as-received' aligners of each material were used as control (CON) groups.įour groups of materials were examined: A = Invisalign® CON B = Invisalign® used C = 3D-printed CON and D = 3D-printed used. Twelve clinically used Invisalign® appliances and the same number of 3D-printed aligners were obtained from a respective number of patients, without involvement of attachments. To assess the surface roughness of in-house 3D-printed orthodontic aligners compared to Invisalign® appliances, both retrieved as well as in the 'as-received' control status.Īn in vitro study following intra-oral material aging.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |