![]() ![]() Each measurement was taken from the central axis of that dimension. To measure the resulting blocks a digital measurement was taken using a Dentsply Sirona Ineos X5 lab scanner to measure the XYZ dimensions of each block produced on each printer using CloudCompare to measure the deviation compared to the Master STL. All test blocks were printed using the same settings with 100 micron Z layer thickness and the print time set to standard where applicable. In total, 12 3D printers produced test blocks. For the purposes of this study, the use of a standardised printable object was used to measure the accuracy of these recent 3D printers. Since these new printers will replace current models that may have been included in the previous studies in the literature, it is important to study whether they are statistically more or less accurate and to discuss whether these results are clinically relevant. The present study involves some of the recently released 3D printers that have not yet been studied for their accuracy. The aim of this manuscript is to present a literature review on 12 3D printers, namely the Ackuretta Sol, Anycubic Photon and Photon S, Asiga Max UV, Elegoo Mars, Envisiontec Vida HD, Envisiontec One, Envisiontec D4K Pro, Formlabs Form 2 and Form 3, Nextdent 5100, and Planmeca Creo, studying the accuracy of these printers that are of a wide variety of budgets. The resolution and accuracy of 3D model samples are determined by a wide array of factors depending on the technology used and related factors such as the print head/laser spot size/screen resolution, build orientation, materials, geometric features, and their topology. Judging the dimensional accuracy of the resulting printed part requires comparison and conformity between the 3D printed model and its virtual counterpart. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |