An Evaluation of the Performance of Low-Cost Resin Printers in Orthodontics

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorOguz, Firat
dc.contributor.authorBor, Sabahattin
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-04T13:31:11Z
dc.date.available2026-04-04T13:31:11Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground/Objectives: This study evaluated the trueness and precision of three low-cost 3D printers compared to a professional-grade printer in fabricating orthodontic models. Methods: Two upper dental models, one crowded and one non-crowded, were designed using Blenderfordental and Autolign. The models were printed with Anycubic M3 Premium, Anycubic Photon D2, Phrozen Sonic Mini 8K, and Ackuretta Sol at 45 degrees and 90 degrees using Elegoo orthodontic and Ackuretta Curo resins. A total of 384 models were produced: 256 crowded (128 at 90 degrees and 128 at 45 degrees) and 128 non-crowded (all at 45 degrees). Chitubox Dental Slicer and ALPHA AI slicer were used for slicing. Post-processing involved cleaning with Ackuretta Cleani and curing in Ackuretta Curie. The models were scanned with Smartoptics Vinyl Open Air. Trueness was assessed using RMS deviation analysis in CloudCompare and linear measurements. Results: One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in trueness among the printers at 45 degrees (p < 0.001) and 90 degrees (p < 0.001). The Ackuretta Sol (LCD) exhibited the highest trueness, with the lowest mean RMS values at 45 degrees (0.095 +/- 0.008 mm) and 90 degrees (0.115 +/- 0.010 mm). The Anycubic M3 Premium (LCD) had the lowest trueness, with RMS values at 45 degrees (0.136 +/- 0.015 mm) and 90 degrees (0.149 +/- 0.012 mm). The 45 degrees build angle resulted in significantly better trueness than 90 degrees (p < 0.001). In linear measurements, deviations exceeding 0.25 mm were observed only in the R1 distance, except for the Ackuretta SOL, which remained below this threshold. Conclusions: The professional-grade printer demonstrated the best performance overall. Printing at a 45 degrees build angle resulted in improved accuracy. Despite differences among devices, all printers produced results within clinically acceptable limits for orthodontic use.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/biomimetics10040249
dc.identifier.issn2313-7673
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5463-0057
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-6040-3790
dc.identifier.pmid40277648
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105003535170
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10040249
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/108643
dc.identifier.volume10
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001477572300001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMdpi
dc.relation.ispartofBiomimetics
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250329
dc.subjectorthodontic models
dc.subject3D printing
dc.subjecttrueness
dc.subjectprecision
dc.subjectdigital dentistry
dc.titleAn Evaluation of the Performance of Low-Cost Resin Printers in Orthodontics
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu