Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Dentistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdent

Review article

3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing

procedures of vat-polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: A
narrative review
Wenceslao Piedra-Cascón a, f, Vinayak R. Krishnamurthy b, Wael Att c, Marta Revilla-León d, e, f, *
a
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
b
J. Mike Walker ’66 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
c
Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
d
Comprehensive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, TX, United States
e
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
f
Researcher at Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Objective: To review the elements of the vat-polymerization workflow, including the 3D printing parameters,
3D printing support structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures, as well as how these elements affect the character­
Additive manufacturing istics of the manufactured dental devices.
Polymers
Data: Collection of published articles related to vat-polymerization technologies including manufacturing
Printing parameters
Vat polymerization technologies
workflow description, and printing parameters definition and evaluation of its influence on the mechanical
properties of vat-polymerized dental devices was performed.
Sources: Three search engines were selected namely Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane. A manual search
was also conducted.
Study selection: The selection of the optimal printing and supporting parameters, slicing, and post-processing
procedures based on dental application is in continuous improvement. As well as their influence on the char­
acteristics of the additively manufactured (AM) devices such as surface roughness, printing accuracy, and me­
chanical properties of the dental device.
Results: The accuracy and properties of the AM dental devices are influenced by the technology, printer, and
material selected. The printing parameters, printing structures, slicing methods, and the post-processing tech­
niques significantly influence on the surface roughness, printing accuracy, and mechanical properties of the
manufactured dental device; yet, the optimization of each one may vary depending on the clinical application of
the additively manufactured device.
Conclusions: The printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures have been
identified, but additional studies are needed to establish the optimal manufacturing protocol and enhance the
properties of the AM polymer dental devices.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The understanding of the factors involved in the additive manufacturing workflow
leads to a printing success and better outcome of the additively manufactured dental device.

1. Introduction three-dimensional (3D) model in a layer-by-layer building process

The computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD-CAM) workflow includes three steps: data capturing, data pro­
cessing, and manufacturing [1–5] including subtractive and additive
(AM) techniques [6–10]. AM methods implement the fabrication of a
[11–14], which allows the manufacturing of complex geometries while
spending less time and material [2].
AM processes have been categorized in seven families [11,12]:
vat-polymerization, material extrusion, material jetting, binder jetting,
powder-based fusion, sheet lamination, and direct energy deposition.

* Corresponding author at: 3302 Gaston Avenue, Room 713, Dallas, TX, 75246, United States.
E-mail address: revillaleon@tamu.edu (M. Revilla-León).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103630
Received 26 January 2021; Received in revised form 1 March 2021; Accepted 3 March 2021
Available online 5 March 2021
0300-5712/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Piedra-Cascón et al. Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630

Table 1 Table 2
PICO question and Boolean search. Summary of the CAM manufacturing workflow for processing polymers using
PICO Question Boolean search strategy
vat-polymerization 3D printers.
CAM workflow for processing polymers Parameters
P (problem or population) comprised ("Dental Model"[MeSH] OR “dental cast”
the polymer additively OR “Diagnostic cast” or “Definitive cast” - Layer thickness
manufactured dental devices OR “Custom tray” OR “silicone index” OR - Fill spacing
including casts, custom trays, “interim restoration” OR “Provisional - Fill cure depth
silicone indexes, interim dental restoration” OR “Occlusal Splint"[MeSH] - Hatch overcured
restorations, occlusal devices, and OR "Dental Night Guard"[MeSH] OR - Border overcured
Printing parameters
surgical guides “Occlusal device” OR “Mouthguard” OR - Exposure time
I (intervention), included the different “Night Guard” OR "Surgery, Computer- - Lifting height
printing parameters Assisted"[MeSH] OR “Surgical Guide” OR Data processing (CAM - Lifting speed
C (comparison), was determined as “Guided Surgery”) AND (“Printing, Three software programs) - Lowering speed
milling or subtractive Dimensional”[MeSH] OR “Three- - Delay
manufacturing procedures Dimensional Printings”[MeSH] OR “3- - Uniform or adaptative slicing
Dimensional Printings”[MeSH] OR - Position of the object in the
“Printing, 3-Dimensional”[MeSH] OR “3D Slicing and support building platform
Printing”[MeSH] OR “Vat-polymerization” parameters - Printing orientation/
OR “Additive Manufacturing”) AND angulation
(“Dimensional Measurement - Supportive structures
O (outcome), corresponded to the Accuracy”[MeSH] OR “Manufacturing Manufacturing
manufacturing accuracy, surface accuracy” OR “Accuracy” OR “Surface - Remove
roughness, mechanical properties of roughness” OR “Compressive - Clean
the polymer vat-polymerized dental Strength”[MeSH] OR “Flexural Post-processing procedures - Post-polymerization
devices Strength”[MeSH] OR “Hardness”[MeSH] - Removal of the supportive
OR “Porosity”[MeSH] OR “Shear structures
Strength”[MeSH] OR “Stress,
Mechanical”[MeSH] OR “Tensile, CAM, Computer-aided manufacturing.
Strength”[MeSH] OR “Mechanical
properties”).
resolution along the Z- axis determines the layer thickness which can be
modified depending on the material and the printer selected.
The accuracy and properties of the AM dental devices would be
influenced by the manufacturing trinomial namely technology, printer,
and material selected [33–38]. A clinician can influence on the accuracy
of the AM devices by handling decisions such as printer calibration,
Vat-polymerization methods have been selected to fabricate a wide ambient temperature, or storage conditions of the printing material. In
range of dental devices [15–22]. Vat-polymerization involves hardening addition, different factors of the manufacturing workflow can impact on
a bulk liquid to build an object [11,12]. The strategy behind the 3D the characteristics of AM devices such as geometry and thickness of the
photopolymerization is founded on using a resin in a liquid state that is device [35–39], printing parameters [33,35,37,40–51], support pa­
polymerized upon exposure to a light source of specific wavelength [23, rameters [33–37,40–42], slicer software [41], and post-processing
23]. This procedure typically results in material shrinkage [23,24]. procedures [41,42,44,52–55].
Vat-polymerization technologies can be divided into different categories A systematic manufacturing workflow that includes the 3D printing
depending on the light source employed on the printer: stereo­ parameters, support parameters, slicing methods, and post-processing
lithography (SLA), direct light processing (DLP), and liquid crystal procedures based on the clinical application of the manufactured
display based (LCD) printers also called daylight polymer printing (DPP) dental device is lacking. The understanding of the AM elements and how
[11,12,23–27]. Continuous liquid interface (CLIP) [28] is a DLP varia­ clinicians can maximize the properties of the AM devices are recom­
tion that is also considered a vat-polymerization technology [10–12]. mended to facilitate the integration of chairside printers in private
In the SLA, a building platform is submerged into a liquid polymer practices and lead to a successful accurate printing. The goal of this
resin which is polymerized using ultraviolet (UV) light in a layer-by- article was to review the vat-polymerization workflow including the 3D
layer manner [29–32]. In SLA, a laser traces a cross-section of the ob­ printing parameters, support parameters, slicing, and post-processing
ject on the surface of the liquid photosensitive resin and polymerizes it procedures, and how all these elements affect the characteristics of the
[29–32]. In DLP printers, the polymer is exposed to light from a pro­ AM dental devices such as surface roughness, printing accuracy, and
jector or a digital micromirror device (DMD) to project a mask of light mechanical properties.
that polymerizes the whole layer at the same time [25]. The DPP tech­
nology uses light from LCD screens to polymerize the photosensitive 2. Material and methods
resin [28]. The CLIP technology uses a DMD to polymerize the resin
through an oxygen permeable window made of fluoropolymer that PICO question that defined the search strategy and Boolean is pre­
creates an area called “dead zone” where polymerization is inhibited sented in Table 1. All titles and abstracts were first assessed, only the
between the window and the polymerized part [28]. articles that evaluated the influence of the printing parameters on the
Accuracy is defined by trueness and precision [33–35]. Trueness manufacturing accuracy, surface roughness, and mechanical properties
relates to the ability of a printer to reproduce an object as close to its of the polymer vat-polymerized dental devices were included. Two
virtual form and precision indicates the reproducibility of a printer calibrated reviewers (W.P.C., M.R.L.) gathered the data from the
manufacturing a device under the same conditions [33–35]. The printer selected articles into structured tables. Disagreements were resolved by
accuracy is determined by the resolution of the x-, y-, and z- axis, which consensus and a third examiner (V.K.) was consulted.
is related to the characteristics of the printer’s light source. XY resolu­
tion is defined as the minimum feature size that can be reproduced by a 3. Results
printer horizontally. In SLA printers, the resolution is defined by the
diameter of the laser spot while in DLP, CLIP, and DPP technologies, it is The search strategy yielded 188 articles. After revising the titles and
determined by the pixel size of the projector or LCD screen. The abstracts, 48 articles were identified, 7 of which were excluded after full

2
W. Piedra-Cascón et al. Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630

Fig. 1. A, Schematic view of printing parameters concepts in vat-polymerization AM technologies. B, Hatch spacing. C, Fill spacing. D, Fill cure depth. E, Hatch
overcured. F, Border overcured.

Fig. 2. A, Failed 3D printing because only the support structures were 3D printed. B, The printing parameters selected on the failed printing where the exposure time
was correctly determined but no correlation between printing parameters and printing zones, lifting height and lifting speed. C, Successfully printing where printing
parameters were re-calculated for each printing zone of the sliced model. D, 3D printing parameters determined on the successfully printing.

3
W. Piedra-Cascón et al.
Fig. 3. A, Failed 3D printing because only the support structures were 3D printed. B, The printing parameters selected on the failed printing where the exposure time
was correctly determined but no correlation between printing parameters and printing zones, lifting height and lifting speed. C, Successfully printing where printing
parameters were re-calculated for each printing zone of the sliced model. D, 3D printing parameters determined on the successfully printing.
text revision. A total of 41 articles were reviewed. The selected articles
were classified into 4 groups depending on the manufacturing variables
analyzed listed as printing parameters, support parameters, slicing, and
post-processing procedures. The terminology used in dental literature to
enumerate the printing and support parameters have been used inter­
changeably among the different studies reviewed. Printing and support
parameters are described in Table 2.
3.1. Printing parameters
When manufacturing dental devices using a vat-polymerization
printer, there are six printing parameters influencing the dimensional
accuracy of the AM part. Those printing parameters were described by
Lee et al. in 2001 [56] (Fig. 1). “Layer thickness is the depth of a layer, the
region that is solidified at the same elevation; hatch spacing is the dis­
tance between a couple of adjacent strands, which are the narrow re­
gions solidified by the laser scanning; fill spacing is the uncured resin
located in the hatch spacing; fill cure depth is the depth of the strands or
fill cure depth if the strand is located at the top or bottom surface of the
part; hatch overcure is the depth that a strand pierces into the lower
adjacent layer; and border overcure is the overcure located at the lateral
boundaries of the object”.
Normally, the printer’s manufacturer provides a printer software
that allows the customization of those printing parameters [57]. How­
ever, some printer manufacturers provide five more additional printing
parameters to help reduce the complexity of operation and to better
relate the physical functioning of the printer and the characteristics of
the material being used. These parameters are exposure time, lifting
height, lifting speed, lowering speed, and delay [58,59]. Exposure time
determines the light exposure duration of a single layer; lifting height is
the height reached by the building platform after each layer is poly­
merized, giving enough time for the detaching layer processed; lifting
speed is the speed at which the platform moves once the resin layer has
been polymerized; lowering speed is the speed at which the platform
moves towards the vat; and delay is the time needed between layer(s)
4
Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630
polymerizations.
The setting of the different printing parameters will influence the
photopolymerization of the selected resin. The customization of the
printing parameters has the objective of performing a controlled poly­
merization [56]. Two key elements define the photopolymerization of a
photosensitive resin are the depth of polymerization and the energy
required for polymerization. The depth of polymerization for each
polymer depends on the amount of exposure dose which can be adjusted
by adjusting the power of the light source (by the manufacturer) and/or
the length of time that the light is applied onto the resin (exposure time
or fill cure depth) [60–69]. The depth of light polymerization may be
different for each polymer due to the composition differences on
photo-initiators, viscosity, pigments, other added UV components, and
the power of the light source of the 3D printer selected [60–65].
In engineering studies, different semi-empirical approaches using
statistical computations or algorithm models have been created to
establish the optimal printing parameters that would produce the min­
imum part build error [68–71]. In dentistry, those calculations are
dtypically delivered by the manufacturers in a manufacturing guideline
to the user or standardized manufacturing protocol [10,21,42,45]. But
some dental polymer materials can be processed in different
vat-polymerization printers due to the wavelength compatibility be­
tween the material and the printer. In this case, the manufacturing
protocol is established by user’s experience (non-standardized
manufacturing protocol).
Based on the geometry and characteristics of the device being
manufactured, the optimization of the printing process for each dental
polymer and printer is a fundamental procedure for standardization of a
manufacturing process (Figs. 2, 3). In other words, the printer parame­
ters should be calibrated for each resin available for vat-polymerization
processing. Dental literature lacks information regarding the effect of
the different printing parameters on the printing accuracy, superficial
roughness, and mechanical properties of the vat-polymerized dental
devices [44–49,72]. The investigations present disparities on the
research protocol which makes it difficult to draw comparison between
W. Piedra-Cascón et al. Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630

Table 3
Summary of the dental literature that evaluated the influence on the printing orientation and supportive structures on the printing accuracy and mechanical properties
on the vat-polymerized dental materials. Some studies’ details regarding printing parameters, slicing procedures, and/or supportive materials was not provided by the
authors.
AUTHORS VARIABLES MEASUREMENT NUMBER & TECHNOLOGY, PARAMETERS RESULTS
ANALYZED GEOMETRY PRINTER &
SPECIMENS MATERIAL

SLA Technology Layer thickness: 50μm

DW028D Printer Compressive strength for vertically
Post-processing:
Alharbi et - Printing orientation Compressive (DSW) printed specimens was 297 ± 34 MPa
Bar (n = 20)
al37 (vertical, horizontal) strength − 95% ethanol compared with 257 ± 41 MPa for the
Temporis A1
- Polymerization: S2 unit horizontally printed specimens
(DWS)
(DWS) for 30 min.
Printing orientation and support
- Printing orientation structure configuration had an
(90, 120, 135, 150, influence on the dimensional
SLA Technology Layer thickness: 50μm
180, 210, 225, 240, accuracy of 3D-printed crowns.
and 270) Among the tested angles, the 120◦
Alharbi et Molar crown (n
Printing accuracy build angle showed
al45 = 1)
DW028D Printer
Post-processing:
(DSW) a minimal deviation of 0.029 mm for
- Supportive structures
− 95% ethanol 1 m in thin support and 0.031 mm for thick
(thick, thin) Temporis DD-1000
- Polymerization: S2 unit support
(DWS)
(DWS) for 30 min.
- Specimens manufactured with their
- Resin material (3
long-axis positioned distal to the
interim dental DLP technology Post-processing:
printer’s platform showed higher
materials)
fracture load than occlusal ones.
- Ultrasonic 96 % ethanol for
- Printing orientation
D20II printer 5 min, except 3Delta temp - Artificial aging significantly
(distal, buccal,
(Rapidshape) that was exposed to decreased fracture resistance.
occlusal)
centrifugal force for 3 min.
Reymus et - Post-polymerization 3-unit FDP*(n
Fracture resistance - Resin material
al41 procedures = 15)
1. Experimental
(GC) - Polymerization 30 min
- Different post-polymerization
2. Nexdent C&B Otoflash unit, except Nexdent
procedures tested significantly
- Aging (distilled water (NextDent) C&B speciemens unit
influence on fracture resistance.
for 21 days at 37 ◦ C) 3. Freeprint temp Printbox.
(Detax)
4. 3Delta temp
(Deltamed)
- The print orientation influences the
printing accuracy. The parameters
printed along the Z-axis showed the
lowest accuracy. Specimens with 45◦
- Printing orientation
Flexural strength SLA Technology Layer thickness: 50μm orientation were found to be the most
(0◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ )
accurate. Object printed on the
borders of build platform a rather
prone to inaccuracies than those in
the center.
- The 90◦ printing orientation
specimens with layer orientation
- Positioning on the
Flexural modulus Form2 (Formlabs) Post-processing: parallel to the axial load showed the
building platform
superior flexural strength and flexural
modulus.
− 90% isopropanol solution.
Unkovskiy
Bar (n = 10) - Polymerization
et al42
Dentacolor XS (Heraeus
Kulzer) curing oven in 5 ×
180 s steps (total = 15 min)
with a wavelength of
320− 520 nm.
- Post-polymerization Polymerization analysis: - The use of different curing unit is
Printing accuracy Dental SG resin
procedure (3 different - Dentacolor XS (Heraeus unlikely to affect the objects printing
on x, y, and z-axis. (Formlabs)
polymerization units) Kulzer) for 15 min. accuracy and flexural properties.
Wavelength 320− 520 nm.
- Speed Laborlight (Hager
&Werken) for 15 min.
Wavelength 320− 520 nm
- Visio Beta Vario (3 M ESPE)
15 min. Wavelength
320− 520 nm.
Model 2 - Surface roughness means values
Arnold et - Layer thickness (25,
Surface roughness abutments for SLA Technology NA** between 0.87 and 4.44 μm. The
al44 50, 100 μm)
4-unit FPD* samples with 15◦ printing orientation
(continued on next page)

5
W. Piedra-Cascón et al. Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630

Table 3 (continued )
AUTHORS VARIABLES MEASUREMENT NUMBER & TECHNOLOGY, PARAMETERS RESULTS
ANALYZED GEOMETRY PRINTER &
SPECIMENS MATERIAL

and 100 μm layer thickness showed

- Printing orientation
(0◦ , 15◦ )
- Positioning on the
building platform
- Supportive structures
- Hollow vs solid model
- Layer thickness (50
and 100 μm)
45
Park et al - Printing orientation
(0◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , 60◦ , and
90◦ )
52 - Printing orientation
Shim et al
(0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ )
*
FDP: Fixed partial denture.
**
NA: Not available.
highest superficial roughness values.
Form2 (Formlabs)
- Positioning on the building platform
and hollow/solid model did not
Grey resin V3 influence on the superficial
(Formlabs) roughness.
DLP technology Post-processing:
Model 2 The fit of the 3D printed specimens
Internal and − 95% ethanol for 2 min, -
abutments for varied depending on the printing
marginal fit D2− 120 printer Post-polymerization in curing
3-unit FPD* orientation and the layer thickness.
(Hephzibah) unit (MP100; Hephzibah) 30
min.
Printing accuracy Bar and disk SLA Technology -Layer thickness 100 μm
Printing orientation significantly
Flexural strength Form2 (Formlabs) -Printing parameters and
influenced the printing accuracy,
Surface roughness post-processing according to
specimens Nexdent Base (3D flexural strength, roughness, and
manufacturer’s instructions
Microbial adhesion Systems) response to C. albicans.
(details NA**)

Fig. 4. A, Silicone indices positioned on the building platform using the slicer software (Chitubox v1.4.0; Shenzhen CBD Technology Co; China). B, Pattern data set of
sliced STL models to be projected on a SLA-DLP 3D Printer.

them; moreover, the majority of the studies assessed multiple parame­
ters at the same time, which makes it difficult to see the clear effect of
one parameter on the results presented.
A previous study has analyzed the influence of the layer thickness, as
well as different supporting parameters such as printing orientation,
position on the building platform, and supporting structures on the
surface roughness of the specimens fabricated using an SLA 3D printer
[44]. Layer thickness and supporting structures characteristics demon­
strated a significant influence on the surface roughness of the specimens
[44] (Table 3).
Different authors have evaluated the accuracy of dental models
manufactured using different printers and dental model resin materials
[46–49]. Dental literature has attempted to standardize the
manufacturing workflow aiming to provide a better printing accuracy;
however, the generalization of the manufacturing workflow is not rec­
ommended. It is important to remember that one printer can obtain
different printing accuracy by changing the printing and supporting
parameters or by modifying the post-processing procedures [33–55].
Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of the printing pa­
rameters on the surface roughness, printing accuracy, and mechanical
properties of dental devices for different applications. Furthermore, the
generalization of results obtained in the different available dental
studies should be avoided as the manufacturing procedures varied be­
tween the studies.

6
W. Piedra-Cascón et al.
Fig. 5. 3D Printing Zones A, The first zone corresponds with the layer 1. B, The second zone corresponds to the layers of the base up to 0.3 mm. C, The third zone is
determined by the first 2 mm of support structures. D, The fourth zone is the rest of support structures and first 2 mm of the object. E, Fifth Zone. F, Sixth zone. G,
Seventh zone. H, Eighth zone.
3.2. Slicing Methods
Data processing includes not only the determination of the printing
parameters that will be used to manufacture an object but also the
slicing methods. A slicer is a software used for the conversion of an STL
file into the specific instructions for the 3D printer to manufacture the
object, including position of the 3D object in the building platform,
printing orientation, and generation of support structures [44] (Fig. 4).
Once the mentioned requirements are determined, the software slices
the STL file automatically, resulting in a set of binary images that define
the regions occupied by the material of the object. Each image corre­
sponds to one layer, that is projected sequentially in order to build the
3D object. The slicing algorithm, which is determined by the printer
software, cuts the object into slices of equal thickness based on the
surface of the 3D object specified in the STL file [61,73].
There are two main slicing techniques namely uniform slicing and
adaptative slicing procedures. Uniform slicing is the simplest approach
for slicing a part at equal intervals. Adaptive slicing has been proposed
to generate a variable layer thickness based on a local surface geometry
and pre-specified smoothness requirements [74–76]. In the knowledge
of the authors, the majority of the dental printer users use uniform
slicing. However, no reports have been performed in dental literature.
Once sliced, each 3D model can be divided into different printing
zones where each zone can have different printing parameters (Fig. 5).
Different printing zones have been described by printer’s manufacturers
[58,59]; however, in the knowledge of the authors, there is no definition
of such printing zones in engineering or dental literature. Based on
printer’s manufacturer information, the first zone would correspond to
the first layer or attachment layer that provides fixation to the building
platform; the second zone is the zone that comprises the base of the layers
up to 0.3 mm; the third zone would correspond to the rest of the layers
that makes up the first 2 mm of the model, where normally only contains
the support structures; the fourth zone contains layers of supporting
structures plus a few layers of the model, assuring proper adhesion be­
tween the tips of support structures and the model; lastly, the fifth to eight
7
Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630
zone would be comprised with the layers that are only for model slices.
3.3. Supporting Parameters
Supporting parameters include the specification of print orientation,
position on the building platform and determination of the amount, size,
and location of the supportive structures. Previous studies have evalu­
ated the influence of printing angulation and part positioning on the
building platform on the accuracy, surface texture, and mechanical
properties of the AM object [37,41–45,51]. However, due to the dis­
parities among the protocols, printers, and resins used, or size and ge­
ometries of the specimens, it is challenging to determine the optimal
position on the building platform or printing angulation to manufacture
a specific device [34,37,42,44–51].
Previous authors have evaluated the relationship between the
printing orientation and the compressive strength of the SLA AM interim
dental polymer materials [37,41,42]. The vertically printed specimens,
where the layer orientation was perpendicular to loading direction,
presents a significantly higher compressive strength than the horizon­
tally printed specimens [37,41,42]. A previous study demonstrated a
significant effect of the building angle and supporting structure config­
uration on the dimensional accuracy of the specimens, where the se­
lection of building angle determined specific number of supporting
structures [40].
The printing orientation also affects the dimensional accuracy of the
AM device [41,42], but the determination of the optimal printing
orientation may differ based on the application of the resin and the
printer used [42,45]. There are limited number of polymers available
that are CE- and/or FDA-approved for intraoral use and limited amount
of information regarding their compositions and mechanical properties
to support their clinical application [21,41,77].
3.4. Post-processing procedures
The post-processing procedures can be divided in four steps namely
W. Piedra-Cascón et al.
Fig. 6. Post- processing procedures. A, Remove. B, Clean. C, Post-polymerization. D, Support structures removal.
removal, cleaning, post-polymerization, and removal of supporting
structures [78,79]. Removal implies the physical removal of the device
from the building platform (Fig. 6A), cleaning eliminates the uncured
resin on the surface of the object by submerging the device in an organic
solvent like isopropyl (IPA) or isopropanol alcohol [80,81] (Fig. 6B),
post-polymerization is recommended to complete polymerization of the
device using a UV-polymerization machine [82,83] (Fig. 6C), and the
removal of the supporting structures can be performed using a cutting
device, a diamond disc, or an ultrasonic tip (Fig. 6D).
Limited number of dental studies have evaluated the influence of
post-processing procedures on printing accuracy and mechanical prop­
erties of the device [39,41,42] (Table 3). Regarding cleaning
post-processing methods, available dental studies are very scarce [53].
Mostafavi et al. [53] evaluated the influence of rinsing solvents (IPA and
tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether -TPM) on the manufacturing ac­
curacy of dental model material. Results showed that TPM solvent ob­
tained higher accuracy values compared to the IPA solvent.
Reymus et al. [41] reported significant fracture load value discrep­
ancies among the interim dental materials that were post-polymerized
using different light curing machines. However, Unkovskiy et al. [42]
did not find a correlation between the post-polymerization procedures
and the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and dimensional accuracy of
the AM specimens. Reymus et al. [49] in another study demonstrated
that the post-polymerization procedures influence the degree of con­
version of the AM interim dental materials tested. Kim et al. [54] showed
that the Vickers hardness, degree of conversion, and biocompatibility of
the printed resins increased significantly around the beginning of the
post-curing time, and then increased more gradually as the post-curing
time increased further.
4. Conclusions
The accuracy and properties of the additively manufactured dental
devices are influenced by the manufacturing trinomial namely tech­
nology, printer, and material selected. The standardization of printing
parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing
8
Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630
procedures should be incorporated into the manufacturing protocols to
optimize the accuracy and mechanical properties of the dental device
based on its clinical applications. Further studies are needed to deter­
mine the optimal manufacturing protocol for each dental device and
how those printing parameters impact on the accuracy and mechanical
properties of the printed dental devices.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] J.M. Young, B.R. Altschuler, Laser holography in dentistry, J. Prosthet. Dent. 38
(1977) 216–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(77)90289-x.
[2] R. Van Noort, The future of dental devices is digital, Dent. Mater. 28 (2012) 3–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
[3] T.J. Horn, O.L.A. Harrysson, Overview of current additive manufacturing
technologies and selected applications, Sci. Prog. (New Haven) 95 (2012) 255–282,
https://doi.org/10.3184/003685012X13420984463047.
[4] M. Fahad, P. Dickens, M. Gilbert, Novel polymeric support materials for jetting
based additive manufacturing processes, Rapid Prototyp. J. 19 (2013) 230–239,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541311323245.
[5] S. Kalpakjian, S.R. Schmid, Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 7th ed.,
Addison-Wesley, New York, New York, 2014, pp. 1–10.
[6] S. Witkowski, CAD-/CAM in dental technology, Quintessence Dent. Technol. 28
(2005) 169–184.
[7] K. Torabi, E. Farjood, S. Hamedani, Rapid prototyping technologies and their
applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature, J. Dent. Shiraz. Univ. Med.
Sci. 16 (2015) 1–9.
[8] V. Singh, Rapid prototyping, materials for RP and applications of RP, Int. J. Eng.
Res. Sci. 4 (2013) 473–480.
[9] M. Revilla-León, M. O¨zcan, Additive manufacturing technologies used for 3D metal
printing in dentistry, Curr. Oral Health Rep. 4 (2017) 201–208, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40496-017-0152-0.
W. Piedra-Cascón et al.
[10] M. Revilla-León, M. O¨zcan, Additive manufacturing technologies used for
processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic
dentistry, J. Prosthodont. 28 (2019) 146–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/
jopr.12801.
[11] ISO 17296-2:2015. Additive manufacturing general principles part 2: overview of
process categories and feedstock. https://www.iso.org/standard/61626.html?bro
wse=tc. Accessed 06/01/2019.
[12] ASTM, Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies, West
Conshohocken, Pa. 2009 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing general
principles and terminology. ISO/ASTM52900-15. Accessed 05/01/2019.
[13] G.T. Grant, S.D. Campbell, R.M. Masri, M.R. Andersen, American College of
Prosthodontists. Digital dentistry glossary development task force. Glossary of
digital dental terms, J. Prosthodont. 25 (2016) S2–9, https://doi.org/10.1111/
jopr.12532.
[14] https://www.forbes.
com/sites/tjmccue/2017/09/14/3d-printing-moves-align-tech
nology-toward-1-3-billion-in-sales/#4fff9a065378 Accessed 03/01/2020.
[15] M. Revilla-León, J.L. Sánchez-Rubio, A. Besné-Torre, M. Özcan, A report on a
diagnostic digital workflow for esthetic dental rehabilitation using additive
manufacturing technologies, Int. J. Esthet. Dent. 13 (2018) 184–196.
[16] W. Piedra Cascón, J.R. De Gopegui, M. Revilla-León, Facially generated and
additively manufactured baseplate and occlusion rim for treatment planning a
complete-arch rehabilitation: a dental technique, J. Prosthet. Dent. 121 (2019)
741–745, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.009.
[17] W. Piedra Cascón, M. Revilla-León, Digital workflow for the design and additively
manufacture of a splinted framework and custom tray for the impression of
multiple implants: a dental technique, J. Prosthet. Dent. 120 (2018) 805–811,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.003.
[18] M. Revilla-León, A. Besné-Torre, J.L. Sánchez-Rubio, J.J. Fábrega, M. Özcan,
Digital tools and 3D printing technologies integrated into the workflow of
restorative treatment: a clinical report, J. Prosthet. Dent. 121 (2019) 3–8, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.020.
[19] M. Revilla-León, J. Fountain, W. Piedra-Cascón, M. Özcan, A. Zandinejad,
Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected
provisional restorations: a novel technique, J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 31 (2019)
213–221, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12464.
[20] M. Revilla-León, L. Raney, W. Piedra-Cascón, J. Barrington, A. Zandinejad,
M. Özcan, Digital workflow for an esthetic rehabilitation using facial and intraoral
scanner and an additive manufactured silicone index: a dental technique,
J. Prosthet. Dent. 123 (2020) 564–570, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prosdent.2019.03.014.
[21] M. Revilla-León, M.J. Meyers, A. Zandinejad, M. Özcan, A review on chemical
composition, mechanical properties, and manufacturing workflow of additively
manufactured current polymers for interim dental restorations, J. Esthet. Restor.
Dent. 31 (2019) 51–57, https://doi.org/0.1111/jerd.12438.
[22] M. Revilla-León, M. Sadeghpour, M. Özcan, An update on applications of 3D
printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry,
Odontology. 108 (2020) 331–338, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-019-00441-7.
[23] A. Bagheri, J. Jin, Photopolymerization in 3D printing ACS, Appl. Polym. Mater. 1
(2019) 593–611, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.8b00165.
[24] Y. Otsubo, T. Amari, K. Watanabe, Rheological behavior of epoxy acrylate
prepolymer during UV curing, J. Appl. Polym. 29 (1984) 4071–4080, https://doi.
org/10.1002/app.1984.070291239.
[25] L. Hornbeck. Digital micromirror device. US Patent No. 5061.049. 2009.
[26] C. Groth, N.D. Kravitz, P.E. Jones, Three-dimensional printing technology, J. Clin.
Orthod. 48 (2014) 475–485.
[27] P.M. Holt. Maskless photopolymer exposure process and apparatus. US Patent
8.114.569 B2. 2012.
[28] J.M. Desimone, A. Ermoshkin, N. Ermoshkin, E.T. Samulski. Continuous liquid
interphase printing. Patent WO 2014/126837A2. PCT/US2014/015506.
[29] H. Kodama, Automatic method for fabricating a three-dimensional plastic model
with photo-hardening polymer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 52 (1981) 177, https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.1136492.
[30] J.C. André, A.L. Mehaute, O. Witte. Device for producing a model of an industrial
part. French Patent 2.567.668. 1986.
[31] C.W. Hull. Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by
stereolithography. US Patent 4575330. 1986.
[32] Stereolithography Interface Specification, 3D Systems, Inc, Valencia, CA, 1988.
[33] K. Puebla, K. Arcaute, R. Quintana, R.B. Wicker, Effects of environmental
conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM
type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (2012)
374–388, https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541211250373.
[34] M. Braian, R. Jimbo, A. Wennerberg, Production tolerance of additive
manufactured polymeric objects for clinical applications, Dent. Mater. 32 (2016)
853–861, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.020.
[35] Y. Ide, S. Nayar, H. Logan, B. Gallagher, J. Wolfaardt, The effect of the angle of
acuteness of additive manufactured models and the direction of printing on the
dimensional fidelity: clinical implications, Odontology. 105 (2017) 108–115,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0239-4.
[36] H.S. Cho, W.S. Park, B.W. Choi, M.C. Leu, Determining optimal parameters for
stereolithography processes via genetic algorithm, J. Manuf. 19 (2000) 18–27,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6125(00)88887-1.
[37] N. Alharbi, R. Osman, D. Wismeijer, Effect of build direction on the mechanical
properties of 3D printed complete coverage interim dental restorations, J. Prosthet.
Dent. 155 (2016) 760–767, https://doi.org/.
9
Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630
[38] M. Revilla-León, M. Umorin, M. Özcan, W. Piedra-Cascón, Color dimensions of
additive manufactured interim restorative dental material, J. Prosthet. Dent. 123
(2020) 754–760, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.001 [Epub ahead of
print].
[39] D. Wu, Z. Zhao, Q. Zhang, H.J. Qi, D. Fang, Mechanics of shape distortion of DLP
3D printed structures during UV post-curing, Soft Matter 15 (2019) 6151–6159,
https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SM00725C.
[40] N. Alharbi, R.B. Osman, D. Wismeijer, Factors influencing the dimensional
accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography
technology, Int. J. Prosthodont. 29 (2016) 503–510, https://doi.org/10.11607/
ijp.4835.
[41] M. Reymus, R. Fabritius, A. Kebler, R. Hickel, D. Edelhoff, B. Stawarczyk, Fracture
load of 3D-printed fixed dental prostheses compared with milled and
conventionally fabricated ones: the impact of resin material, build orientation,
postcuring and artificial aging - an in vitro study, Clin. Oral Investig. 24 (2020)
701–710, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02952-7.
[42] A. Unkovskiy, P.H. Bui, C. Schille, J. Geis-Gerstorfer, F. Huettig, S. Spintzyk,
Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy
and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin, Dent. Mater. 34
(2018) e324–e333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.011.
[43] A. Tahayeri, M. Morgan, A.P. Fugolin, D. Bompolaki, A. Athirasala, C.S. Pfeifer, J.
L. Ferracane, L.E. Bertassoni, 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional
crown and bridge dental materials, Dent. Mater. 34 (2018) 192–200, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003.
[44] C. Arnold, D. Monsees, J. Hey, R. Schweyen, Surface quality of 3D-printed models
as a function of various printing parameters, Materials Basel (Basel) 19 (2019) 12,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12121970.
[45] G.S. Park, S.K. Kim, S.J. Heo, J.Y. Koak, D.G. Seo, Effects of printing parameters on
the fit of implant-supported 3D printing resin prosthetics, Materials Basel (Basel)
12 (2019) 2533, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162533.
[46] Z.C. Zhang, P.L. Li, F.T. Chu, G. Shen, Influence of the three-dimensional printing
and printing layer thickness on model accuracy, J. Orofac. Ortho. 80 (2019)
194–204, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00180-y.
[47] W.A. Loflin, J.D. English, C. Borders, L.M. Harris, A. Moon, J.N. Holland, F.
K. Kasper, Effect of print layer height on the assessment of 3D-printed models, Am.
J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 156 (2019) 283–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ajodo.2019.02.013.
[48] C.S. Favero, J.D. English, B.E. Cozad, J.O. Wirthlin, M.M. Short, F.K. Kasper, Effect
of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed
orthodontic models, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 152 (2017) 557–565,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.012.
[49] M. Reymus, N. Lümkemann, B. Stawarczyk, 3D printed material for temporary
restorations: impact of print layer thickness and post-curing method on degree of
conversion, Int. J. Comput. Dent. 22 (2019) 231–237.
[50] K. Chockalingam, N. Jawahar, U. Chandrasekhar, Influence of layer thickness on
mechanical properties in stereolithography, Rapid. Prototyp. J.12 (2006) 106–113,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610652456.
[51] W. Cheng, F.Y.H. Fuh, A.Y.C. Nee, Y.S. Wong, H.T. Loh, T. Miyazawa, Multi
objective optimization of part orientation in stereolithography, Rapid Prototyp. J.
1 (1995) 12–23.
[52] J.S. Shim, J.E. Kim, S.H. Jeong, Y.J. Choi, J.J. Ryu, Printing accuracy, mechanical
properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins
with various printing orientations, J. Prosthet. Dent. 124 (2020) 468–475, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034.
[53] D. Mostafavi, M.M. Methani, W. Piedra-Cascón, A. Zandinejad, M. Revilla-León,
Influence of the rinsing post-processing procedures on the manufacturing accuracy
of vat-polymerized dental model material, J. Prosthodont. (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1111/jopr.13288 [Epub ahead of print].
[54] D. Kim, J.S. Shim, D. Lee, S.H. Shin, N.E. Nam, K.H. Park, J.S. Shim, J.E. Kim,
Effects of post-curing time on the mechanical and color properties of three-
dimensional printed crown and bridge materials, Polymers. (Basel) 12 (2020)
2762, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112762.
[55] C.H. Lin, Y.M. Lin, Y.L. Lai, S.Y. Lee, Mechanical properties, accuracy, and
cytotoxicity of UV-polymerized 3D printing resins composed of Bis-EMA, UDMA,
and TEGDMA, J. Prosthet. Dent. 123 (2020) 349–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prosdent.2019.05.002.
[56] S.H. Lee, W.S. Park, H.S. Cho, W. Zhang, M.C. Leu, A neural network approach to
the modelling and analysis of stereolithography processes, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 215 (2001) 1719–1733, https://doi.org/10.1177/
095440540121501206.
[57] 3D systems: http://infocenter.3dsystems.com/files/3dsprinth
elp/Build_Style_Parameters.htm#region.
[58] Kudo3D: Titan1. http://www.kudo3d.com/recommended-printing-parameters-e
xposure-time-lifting-height-lifting-speed/ Accessed 11/01/2019.
[59] Uniz. http://www.uniz.com/eu_en/support/support_slash_arguments/ Accessed
11/01/2019.
[60] L. Liravi, S. Das, C. Zhou, Separation force analysis based on cohesive delamination
model for bottom-up stereolithography using finite element analysis, Solid
Freeform Fabr. Symp. Proc. (2014) 1432–1451.
[61] J. Lee, R. Prud’homme, I. Aksay, Cure depth in photopolymerization: experiments
and theory, J. Mater. Res. 16 (2001) 3536–3544, https://doi.org/10.1557/
JMR.2001.0485.
[62] J.T. Cabral, J.F. Douglas, Propagating waves of network formation induced by
light, Polym. 46 (2005) 4230–4241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polymer.2005.02.052.
W. Piedra-Cascón et al.
[63] A. Vitale, J.T. Cabral, Frontal conversion and uniformity in 3D printing by
photopolymerization, Materials (Basel) 9 (2016) 760, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma9090760.
[64] A. Vitale, M.G. Hennessy, O.K. Matar, J.T. Cabral, Interfacial profile and
propagation of frontal photopolymerization waves, Macromol. 48 (2015) 198–205,
https://doi.org/10.1021/ma5021215.
[65] J. Bonada, A. Muguruza, X. Fernández-Francos, X. Ramis Juan, Influence of
exposure time on mechanical properties and photocuring conversion ratios for
photosensitive materials used in additive manufacturing, in: MESIC 2017, 28-30
June 2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain. Procedia. Manuf.Manufacturing Engineering
Society International Conference 2017, 13, 2017, pp. 762–769, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.182.
[66] C. Muehlenfeld, S.A. Roberts, 3D/4D printing in additive manufacturing: process
engineering and novel excipients, in: M. Maniruzzaman (Ed.), In 3D and 4D
Printing in Biomedical Applications, 2019, pp. 12–14.
[67] G. Chryssolouris, J. Kotselis, P. Koutzampoikidis, S. Zannis, D. Moutzis,
Dimensional accuracy modeling of stereolithography parts, in: 32nd CIRP
International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, Leuven, 1999, pp. 213–218.
[68] Y. Lin, M. Chen, C. Yang, A simultaneously sensing system to improve efficiency of
digital light process printing, in: 2017 International Conference on Applied System
Innovation (ICASI), Sapporo, 2017, pp. 1379–1382.
[69] Y. Li, Q. Mao, X. Li, J. Yin, Y. Wang, J. Fu, Y. Huang, High-fidelity and high-
efficiency additive manufacturing using tunable pre-curing digital light processing,
Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019), 100889, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100889.
[70] H.S. Cho, W.S. Park, B.W. Choi, M.C. Leu, Determining optimal parameters for
stereolithography process via genetic algorithm, Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Syst. Eng. 19
(2000) 18–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6125(00)88887-1.
[71] A.P. West, S.P. Sambu, D.W. Rosen, A process planning method for improving build
performance in stereolithography, J. Technol. Comput. Aided Des. Tcad 33 (2001)
65–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00064-6.
[72] F.G. Mangano, O. Admakin, M. Bonacina, F. Biaggini, D. Farronato, H. Lerner,
Accuracy of 6 desktop 3D printers in dentistry: a comparative in vitro study, Eur. J.
Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 28 (2020) 75–85, https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_
2050Mangano11.
[73] W. Oropallo, L.A. Piegl, Ten challenges in 3D printing, Eng. Comput. 32 (2015)
135–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-015-0407-0.
10
Journal of Dentistry 109 (2021) 103630
[74] W. Ma, W.C. But, P. He, NURBS-based adaptive slicing for efficient rapid
prototyping, Comput. Aided. Design. 26 (2004) 1309–1325, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cad.2004.02.001.
[75] P. Mohan Pandey, N. Venkata Reddy, S. Dhande, Slicing procedures in layered
manufacturing: a review, Rapid Prototyp. J. 9 (2003) 274–288, https://doi.org/
10.1108/13552540310502185.
[76] A. Dolenc, I. Mäkelä, Slicing procedures for layered manufacturing techniques,
Comput. Aided. Design. 26 (1994) 119–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485
(94)90032-9.
[77] B. Stawarczyk, A. Ender, A. Trottmann, M. Özcan, J. Fischer, C.H. Hämmerle, Load-
bearing capacity of CAD/CAM milled polymeric three-unit fixed dental prostheses:
effect of aging regimens, Clin. Oral Investig. 16 (2012) 1669–1677, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00784-011-0670-4.
[78] G. Taormina, C. Sciancalepore, M. Messori, F. Bondioli, 3D printing processes for
photocurable polymeric materials: technologies, materials, and future trends,
J. Appl. Biomater. Biomech. 16 (2018) 151–160, https://doi.org/10.1177/
2280800018764770.
[79] C. Decker, The use of UV irradiation in polymerization, Polym. Int. 45 (1998)
133–141, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0126(199802)45:2<133::AID-
PI969>3.0.CO;2-F.
[80] I. Cooperstein, M. Layani, S. Magdassi, 3D printing of porous structures by UV-
curable O/W emulsion for fabrication of conductive objects, J. Mater. Chem. C. 3
(2015) 2040–2044, https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TC02215G.
[81] J.H. Sandoval, K.F. Soto, L.E. Murr, B.R. Wicker, Nanotailoring photo-crosslinkable
epoxy resins with multi-walled carbon nano-tubes for stereolithography layered
manufacturing, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2007) 156–165, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-006-1035-2.
[82] J.H. Sandoval, R.B. Wicker, Functionalizing stereolithography resins: effects of
dispersed multi-walled carbon nano- tubes on physical properties, Rapid Prototyp.
J. 12 (2006) 292–303, https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610707059.
[83] M. Gurr, D. Hofmann, M. Ehm, M. Thomann, K. Rainer, M. Rolf, Acrylic
nanocomposite resins for use in stereolithography and structural light modulation
based rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing technologies, Adv. Funct. Mater.
18 (2008) 2390–2397, https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.200800344.