The effects of additive manufacturing technologies and finish line designs on the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D‐printed dies
Authors: Lai Yi‐Cheng , Yang Chao‐Chieh , Levon John A. , Chu Tien‐Min G. , Morton Dean , Lin Wei‐Shao 
Published: August 2022

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the effects of 5 manufacturing technologies and 2 finish line designs on the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D‐printed definitive dies at finish line regions under different storage conditions and time.Material and methodsPreparation of light chamfer and round shoulder finish lines were adopted individually on two mandibular first molar typodont teeth and digitalized as standard tessellation language (STL) files. A total of 240 samples (192 AM definitive dies and 48 definitive conventional stone dies) in 20 groups (n = 12) were manufactured based on 2 finishing line designs (chamfer and shoulder), 5 manufacturing technologies (4 additively manufactured technologies and conventional stone die), and 2 storage conditions (light exposure and dark). The 4 additively manufactured (AM) technologies include a DLP 3D‐printer, an economic LED 3D‐printer, a CLIP 3D‐printer, and an SLA 3D‐printer. All the study samples were distributed into two storage conditions. Subsequently, samples were digitalized to STL files at 3 different time points (within 36 hours, 1‐month, and 3‐months). A surface matching software was used to superimpose the sample STL files onto the corresponding original STL files with the best‐fit alignment function. The trueness of each printed and stone definitive dies and their dimensional stabilities were measured by the root mean square (RMS, in mm). A linear mixed‐effects model was used to test the effects of the finish line design, manufacturing technology, storage condition, and storage time on RMS values (α = 0.05).ResultsWhile finish line designs had no significant effects [F(1, 220) = 0.85, p < 0.358], the manufacturing technologies [F(3, 220) = 33.02, p < 0.001], storage condition [F(1, 220) = 4.11, p = 0.044], and storage time F(2, 440) = 10.37, p < 0.001] affected the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D‐printed dies at finish line regions. No significant interactions were found among the 4 factors. For the manufacturing technologies, Type IV stone groups and LCD 3D‐printer groups had significantly higher RMS values than the other 3 printers (p < 0.001) with no significant differences between Type IV stone and LCD 3D‐printer groups (p = 0.577). DLP 3D‐printer groups had higher RMS values than both SLA 3D‐printer groups and CLIP 3D‐printer groups (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between SLA 3D‐printer groups and CLIP 3D‐printer groups, p = 0.671. For the effects of storage conditions, RMS values were significantly higher in the groups stored with the direct light exposure than the ones stored in the dark, p = 0.044. In terms of the effects of storage time, the RMS values were significantly higher after 1‐month storage, p = 0.002; and 3‐month storage, p < 0.001, than the ones at the immediate postmanufacturing stage. However, the RMS values after 1‐month and 3‐month storage were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.169).ConclusionsManufacturing technologies, storage conditions, and storage time significantly affected the trueness and dimensional stability of 3D‐printed dies at finish line regions, while finish line designs had no significant effects. Among the AM technologies tested, all have produced either comparable or truer 3D‐printed dies than the Type IV dental stone dies, and the CLIP and SLA 3D‐printers produced the best outcomes. 3D‐printed dies showed significant distortion after 1‐month and 3‐months storage, especially under light exposure storage conditions. These findings may negate the clinical need to preserve 3D‐printed dies, and digital data should be preserved instead.