Publication:
Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

dc.contributor.authorLarriva Loyola, Jaime Alejandro
dc.contributor.authorAbad Coronel, Cristian Gustavo
dc.contributor.authorPazan Morales, Domenica Patricia
dc.contributor.authorHidalgo Tamayo, Maria Lorena
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-04T20:00:03Z
dc.date.available2023-10-04T20:00:03Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractWith the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use. Methods: A typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method. Results: There were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender– InLAB), obtained the highest average (􀀀0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819). Conclusion: Although no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/dj11090216
dc.identifier.issn2304-6767
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/handle/123456789/43038
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/11/9/216
dc.language.isoes_ES
dc.sourceDentistry Journal
dc.subjectSoftware
dc.subjectCADCAM
dc.subjectSTL
dc.subject3D models
dc.subjectDigital workflow
dc.titleComparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software
dc.typeARTÍCULO
dc.ucuenca.afiliacionAbad, C., Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Odontología, Cuenca, Ecuador
dc.ucuenca.afiliacionPazan, D., Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Odontología, Cuenca, Ecuador
dc.ucuenca.afiliacionHidalgo, M., Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Odontología, Cuenca, Ecuador
dc.ucuenca.afiliacionLarriva, J., Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Odontología, Cuenca, Ecuador
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientofrascatiamplio3. Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientofrascatidetallado3.2.15 Odontología
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientofrascatiespecifico3.2 Medicina Clínica
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientounescoamplio09 - Salud y Bienestar
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientounescodetallado0911 - Estudios Dentales
dc.ucuenca.areaconocimientounescoespecifico091 - Salud
dc.ucuenca.correspondenciaAbad Coronel, Cristian Gustavo, cristian.abad@ucuenca.edu.ec
dc.ucuenca.cuartilQ2
dc.ucuenca.factorimpacto0.536
dc.ucuenca.idautor0107284440
dc.ucuenca.idautor0301269916
dc.ucuenca.idautor0102211273
dc.ucuenca.idautor0702927088
dc.ucuenca.indicebibliograficoSCOPUS
dc.ucuenca.numerocitaciones0
dc.ucuenca.urifuentehttps://www.mdpi.com/journal/dentistry
dc.ucuenca.versionVersión publicada
dc.ucuenca.volumenVolumen 11, número 9
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationa837cd57-290b-4f98-8c07-a8305757f459
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverya837cd57-290b-4f98-8c07-a8305757f459

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
documento.pdf
Size:
2.05 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
document

Collections