These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Influence of the Rinsing Postprocessing Procedures on the Manufacturing Accuracy of Vat-Polymerized Dental Model Material.
    Author: Mostafavi D, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A, Revilla-León M.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2021 Aug; 30(7):610-616. PubMed ID: 33205562.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of rinsing solvents, namely isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether (TPM), and rinsing times (5-, 7-, 9-, and 11-minutes) for the postprocessing procedures on the manufacturing accuracy of an additively manufactured dental model resin material. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The standard tessellation language (STL file) of the digital design of a bar (15 mm × 4 mm × 3 mm) was obtained. A resin dental material (E-Model Light; Envisiontec, Dearborn, MI) and a 3D printer (VIDA HD; Envisiontec) was selected to manufacture all the specimens using the STL file following the recommended printing parameters at a room temperature of 23 °C. Two groups were generated based on the rinsing solvent used on the postprocessing procedures, namely isopropyl alcohol (IPA-group) and tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether (TPM-group). Each group was further divided into 4 subgroups (IPA-1 to IPA-4 and TPM-1 to TPM-4) depending on the rinsing time performed (5-, 7-, 9-, and 11-minutes). Twenty specimens per subgroup were fabricated. The dimensions (length, width, and height) of all the specimens were measured using a low force digital caliper (Absolute Low Force Caliper Series 573; Mitutoyo, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa). Each measurement was performed 3 times and the mean value determined. The volume of each specimen was calculated using the formula V = l × w × h. Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05), followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.0018). RESULTS: The IPA groups obtained significantly lower trueness and precision values compared with TPM groups (p < 0.0018). Among the IPA groups, IPA-1 subgroup obtained the highest trueness and precision values compared to the rest of the IPA subgroups. The TPM-1 and TPM-2 subgroups obtained the highest trueness and prevision values among the TPM group and among all the groups tested. No significant difference was found between the TMP-1 and TPM-2 subgroups (p > 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS: None of the manufacturing workflows tested were able to manufacture a perfect match of the bar virtual design dimensions. TPM solvent group obtained higher trueness and precision values compared to the IPA solvent group. The IPA-1 subgroup that replicated the manufacturer´s recommendations obtained the highest manufacturing accuracy among the IPA subgroup. TPM solvent used in a rinsing ultrasonic bath between 3 and 4 minutes followed by a second ultrasonic clean bath between 2 and 3 minutes of the just printed vat polymerized dental model specimens obtained the highest manufacturing accuracy values.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]