INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

Accuracy of digital light processing

printing of 3-dimensional dental models
Stephen L. Sherman,a Onur Kadioglu,b G. Frans Currier,b J. Peter Kierl,b,c and Ji Lid
Baton Rouge, La, and Oklahoma City and Edmond, Okla

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate whether a digital light processing (DLP) printer could perform effi-
ciently and with adequate accuracy for clinical applications when used with different settings and variations in the
orientation of models on the build plate. Methods: Digital impressions of the oral environment were collected
from 15 patients. Subsequently, digital impressions were used to make 3-dimensional printed models using
the DLP printing technique. Three variables of the printing technique were tested: placement on the build
plate (middle vs corner), thickness in the z-axis (50 microns vs 100 microns), and hollow vs solid shell. After
being printed with different printing techniques and orientations on the same printer, a total of 240 maxillary
and mandibular arches were measured. These variables generated 8 printing combinations. Tooth and arch
measurements on each model type were compared with each other. Intraobserver reliability of the repeated
measurement error was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: All mean differences among
the printing variations were statistically insignificant. The Bland-Altman plots verified a high degree of agreement
among all model sets and printing variations. In addition, the measurements were highly reproducible; this was
demonstrated by the high intraclass correlation coefficient for all measurements recorded. Conclusions: The
DLP printer produced clinically acceptable models in all areas of the build plate, with hollow and solid model
shells, and at its high-speed setting of 100 microns. The applications of the DLP printer tested should be a
viable option for printing in a clinical environment at a high-speed setting while filling the build plate and
printing with less resin. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:422-8)

S
uccess in orthodontics can be achieved with
proper diagnosis and treatment planning. Diag-
nosis is primarily based upon factors taken from
dental models, including spacing, crowding, tooth size,
arch form, and dimensions, along with tooth-arch dis-
crepancies.1 This success can be limited by the accuracy
of the records. Although the majority of record-keeping
has changed from paper to digital records, the transition
from plaster casts to digital impressions and printed
models is not as widespread.2 As the necessity for
evidence-based dentistry increases, new forms of records
a
Private practice, Baton Rouge, La.
b 3D printer (Park Dental Research Corporation, New
Division of Orthodontics, Department of Developmental Sciences, College of
Dentistry, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Okla.
c
Private Practice, Edmond, Okla.
d
College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okla-
homa City, Okla.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Po-
tential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Address correspondence to: Onur Kadioglu, Division of Orthodontics, Depart-
ment of Developmental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Oklahoma
Health Sciences Center, 1201 N Stonewall Ave, Room 400, Oklahoma City,
OK 73117; e-mail, onur-kadioglu@ouhsc.edu.
Submitted, September 2018; revised and accepted, October 2019.
0889-5406/$36.00
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.012
and models need to be analyzed for accuracy and repro-
ducibility in order for clinical application to be justified.3
Many studies have been performed to compare the
accuracy of digital dental models acquired from
different methods of extraoral scanning (ie, desktop
scanners for scanning models or impressions).2,4-12
However, only a few studies have examined the
accuracy and reproducibility of dental models
produced from different 3-dimensional (3D) printing
techniques and styles of printing. Previous studies
have had limited sample populations and have left out
dimensional measurements of the dental arches.13,14
Only 1 study has evaluated the accuracy of the JUELL
York, NY) in comparison with stone models and a polyjet
3D printer at the most accurate printing settings and re-
ported no clinical differences.15 To date, there have been
no studies conducted to evaluate the accuracy of
different printing techniques and orientations with a
digital light processing (DLP) printer. In general, the
DLP technique is accepted to be more efficient and faster
than the stereolithography technique, which is also
commonly used for in-office printing.14 This is possible,
because it uses an arc lamp, liquid crystal display panel,

422
Sherman et al
or projection source to cure an entire layer of resin in the
x-y axis at one time instead of laser tracing the image.14
With the advent of 3D printing technology being
relatively new, there is limited literature on the accuracy
of these printed models.2,3,7,15 Current research has
shown clinically acceptable models with high accuracy
for these printers.13-20 Most of the studies performed
on 3D printing of orthodontic models have had some
limitations. All except 3 of the previous studies have
excluded arch dimension measurements.13,15,20 If 3D
printers are to find a place in a practitioner's daily work-
flow, the accuracy of the arch dimension measurements
needs to be evaluated, which is crucial if the printers are
used for fabrication of orthodontic appliances. In addi-
tion, except for the studies by Hazeveld et al18 and
Brown et al15, previous studies have had small sample
sizes of 10 patients or less.13,14,16,17,19,20
The advent of 3D printing is changing the way
dentistry and medicine are practiced. If a 3D printer is
to be clinically acceptable in the health care field, its ac-
curacy, precision, and reproducibility need to be thor-
oughly tested. The transition to a 3D model alternative
will enable the daily office flow to become more efficient
and will appeal to patients as up-to-date dental care.3 If
the DLP printer can perform with clinically acceptable
accuracy at different settings and model orientations,
a more efficient and economical approach may be
possible. It was hypothesized that the DLP printer would
print 3D models with reproducible and consistent accu-
racy while filling the build plate, printing at a high-speed
setting, and using less resin via printing with hollow
models.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethical approval for this study was obtained by the
University of Oklahoma Institutional Review Board for
the Protection of Human Subjects (no. 8366) on
November 27, 2017.
A power analysis was done based on similar precursor
studies.15,18 A total of 15 patients, or 30 arches, were
required for this study in order to attain an 80% proba-
bility of generating a 95% confidence interval with a
margin of error 0.15 mm for tooth measurements and
0.5 mm for arch dimension measurements.
The data collection protocol followed the guidelines
outlined by Brown et al.15 The printing of additional
models also followed the protocol used by Brown et al.
Patients were randomly selected from a pool of retention
patients who received orthodontic treatment at the Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Graduate Orthodontic Clinic. A
patient was considered in retention if his/her orthodon-
tic appliances were removed six-18 months before
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
423
collection of records for this study. All patients had pre-
viously completed comprehensive orthodontic treat-
ment with all permanent teeth present first molar to
the first molar in both dental arches.15
Digital impressions were taken at the 1-year reten-
tion appointment for all patients between December
2016 and February 2017. Digital impressions were re-
corded using a single CEREC Omnicam intraoral scanner
(Dentsply Sirona, York, Pa). All aspects of record collec-
tion followed the manufacturer's recommendations.15
All digital models generated with the intraoral scan-
ner were converted to stereolithography (STL) file format
using additional 3D Imaging Software (Dolphin Imaging
& Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif). The STL
files were cleaned and prepared for 3D printing using
Netfabb additive manufacturing and design software
(Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif). The prepared STL file for
each patient was printed using a DLP technique (JUELL
3D Flash OC; Park Dental Research Corporation, New
York, NY). All models were printed in a horizontal orien-
tation with a horseshoe-shaped base.15
The study models were printed using variations in
printing techniques and different orientations. These
variations included, (1) a model set in the middle (M)
of the plate vs a maxillary model in all 4 corners (C) on
the plate; (2) solid (S) vs hollow (H) shelled models;
and (3) models printed at 50 (50) and 100 (100) microns
in the z-axis. The combination of these variables allowed
for a total of 8 different printing combinations (100 SC,
100 HC, 100 SM, 100 HM, 50 SM, 50 HM, 50 SC, 50 HC).
Each of the 30 models was printed using these printing
combinations.
A total of 120 maxillary and 120 mandibular arches
were measured. These were 30 total arches, with each
being printed using the 8 printing combinations types.
All measurements of the physical models were obtained
using a calibrated digital caliper (Orthopli, Philadel-
phia, Pa), and the teeth measured to the nearest
0.01 mm directly from the models. However, the arch
measurements were measured using the digital caliper
from a 1:1 scale photocopy of the occlusal views. For
all teeth, first molar to the first molar in both dental
arches, tooth measurements recorded included: (1)
the mesial-distal widths from point contact to point
contact (clinical crown width) and (2) the incisal-
gingival heights from gingival zenith to cusp tip or
incisal edge (clinical crown height). Incisal-gingival
measures were used to describe the clinical crown
heights for both anterior and posterior teeth. Arch
dimension measurements for both arches included:
(1) intercanine width from cusp tip to cusp tip, (2) inter-
molar width from mesiolingual cusp tip to mesiolingual
cusp tip, and (3) arch depth from the midline of the
March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3
424
central incisors to a perpendicular line crossing through
the mesial contacts of the first molars (Fig). Three cali-
brated researchers (LV, BF, and SS) measured and re-
corded the data. A singular examiner was assigned to
gather all data for each of the respective measurements
for consistency of landmark identification. One
researcher (LV) measured mesial-distal, 1 researcher
(BF) measured incisal-gingival, and 1 researcher (SS)
measured arch dimensions for all models.
Statistical analysis
Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agree-
ment of the mesial-distal, incisal-gingival, intercanine,
intermolar, and arch depth measurements among the
different 3D printed models. These comparisons
included mean differences as well as limits of agreement
for the 4 model types. A total of 20% of each model type
was measured a second time with a 2-week interval be-
tween measurements. The intraclass correlation coeffi-
cient was used to assess the intraobserver reliability of
the repeated measurement error.15
RESULTS
A total of 6720 tooth measurements were recorded
from the 240 maxillary and mandibular arches along
with an additional 720 arch dimension measurements
for a final total of 7440. Measurements on the printed
model combinations were found to be highly reproduc-
ible with a high intraclass correlation coefficient for all
measurements based on the repeated measurement
error (Table I). Only the arch depth of the 40 repeated
arch measurements for the 50 HC models was slightly
larger.
High agreement between all model sets in the mesial-
distal, incisal-gingival, intercanine, intermolar, and arch
depth measurements was found among all the model
sets (Tables II-IV). The limits of agreement and the P
values for the mean differences vs 0 are also presented
in these tables. The mean differences for all model
comparisons did not significantly differ from 0.
Fig. Arch measurements.
March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sherman et al
However, mean differences for the intercanine widths,
although not statistically significant, were on the
higher side of clinically acceptable for the 50 SM vs 50
SC, 100 SM vs 100 SC, and 100 HM vs 100 HC. The
arch depth was also on the higher side of clinically
acceptable, although not statistically significant, for
comparison of the 50 SM vs 50 SC and the 100 HM vs
100 HC. Finally, the intermolar widths were on the
higher side for the 100 HM vs 100 HC and the 100 HC
vs 100 SC as well as 100 HC vs 50 HC, and the 100
HM vs 50 HM.
DISCUSSION
The accuracy of the DLP printing technique using the
JUELL 3D Flash OC printer by Park Dental Research Cor-
poration was evaluated. This study is the first to evaluate
the accuracy of the DLP technique using different print-
ing variations and orientations and one of the earlier
studies to use digital scans that were acquired from an
intraoral environment similar to a clinical practice
setting.
Though there were no statistical differences in the
means of the measurements of any of the printed model
sets, one still should consider the clinical differences and
their relevance. Previous studies have defined the
acceptable accuracy, in terms of clinical relevance, to
be in the range from 0.20 mm to 0.50 mm.7,9-11,21,22
All of the measurements fell within this acceptable range
of error and within previously suggested acceptable clin-
ical ranges based on findings from the 5 most recent
studies. Those arch measurements that did not fall
within the strictest clinical acceptance range varied
from 0.01 mm to 0.15 mm over the accepted range.
When considering the recommendations of clinical
acceptance from previous studies, all variations of the
3D printing methods produced clinically acceptable
models that could be considered practical alternatives
in clinical application.
Of the 3 variables studied, the placement on the
build plate displayed the most variation in both mean
Sherman et al 425

Table I. Repeated measurement mean error Table II. Agreement between model measurements
(position on the build plate)
Mesial- Incisal- Arch
Model* distal gingival Intercanine Intermolar depth Mean Limits of
100 HC 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.11 differences agreement
100 HM 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 Measurement (mm) (mm) P
100 SC 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.04 Agreement between (1) 50 SM and (2) 50 SC
100 SM 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.06 Mesial-distal 0.002 –0.15 to 0.15 0.972
50 HC 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.22 Incisal-gingival –0.002 –0.06 to 0.06 0.975
50 HM 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.05 Intercanine –0.21 –0.61 to 0.02 0.607
50 SC 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.18 Intermolar 0.04 –1.2 to 1.29 0.958
50 SM 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.04 Arch depth –0.22 –0.77 to 0.33 0.609
H, Hollow; C, corner; M, middle; S, solid. Agreement between (1) 100 SM and (2) 100 SC
*The repeated measurement error equals 1 minus the intraclass cor- Mesial-distal –0.02 –0.02 to 0.16 0.755
relation coefficient. Incisal-gingival 0 –0.06 to 0.06 0.994
Intercanine –0.35 –0.84 to 0.14 0.381
Intermolar –0.07 –0.96 to 0.83 0.932
Arch depth –0.14 –1.15 to 0.87 0.748
differences and limits of agreement (Table II). Of those,
Agreement between (1) 50 HM and (2) 50 HC
higher means and limits of agreement were found in the Mesial-distal –0.004 –0.17 to 0.16 0.951
arch measurements, whereas all mean differences in tooth Incisal-gingival –0.004 –0.13 to 0.12 0.947
measurements varied from 0.0 mm to 0.004 mm. Also for Intercanine –0.13 –0.52 to 0.26 0.74
tooth measurements, the differences in agreement varied Intermolar –0.19 –1.46 to 1.09 0.813
Arch depth –0.08 –1.08 to 0.93 0.851
from –0.05 mm to 0.05 mm for the incisal-gingival mea-
Agreement between (1) 100 HM and (2) 100 HC
surements in the 100 HM vs 100 HC comparison. The Mesial-distal –0.001 –0.07 to 0.69 0.984
largest was –0.17 mm to 0.16 mm in the mesial-distal Incisal-gingival 0.00 –0.05 to 0.05 0.998
measurements for the 50 HM vs 50 HC comparison. Intercanine –0.29 –0.72 to 0.13 0.465
Twenty comparisons were evaluated for each variable Intermolar –0.26 –1 to 0.48 0.728
Arch depth –0.29 –1.33 to 0.75 0.498
with 5 measurements for each of the 4 different model
comparisons as shown in Tables II-IV. Of the 20 Note: The mean difference equals the (2) measurements minus the
(1) measurements. Thus, a positive value represents, on average,
comparisons used in evaluating the model placement
that the (2) measurements are overestimated compared with the
on the build plate, 16 of the mean differences were (1) measurements. Conversely, a negative mean difference repre-
negative. This finding showed a trend that the majority sents, on average, that the (2) measurements are underestimated
of the models in the middle presented higher values compared with the (1) measurements.
than those in the corners of the plate. A total of 4 H, Hollow; C, corner; M, middle; S, solid.
mean differences were calculated for the intercanine
measurements, with 3 of the 4 on the higher end of When compared with the other 2 variables tested, the
clinically acceptable, a difference of .0.2 mm. This hollow vs solid comparisons demonstrated the lowest
finding suggests that the intercanine distances in the mean differences and closest limits of agreements. All
models printed in the middle were greater than those mean differences for tooth measurements varied from
in the models printed in the corners of the plate. In 0.00 mm to 0.01 mm (Table III). The smallest limits of
addition, 2 of 4 arch depth comparisons and 1 of the agreement were –0.05 mm to 0.05 mm in the incisal-
intermolar width comparisons were higher than gingival comparison between the 100 HM and 100
0.2 mm. The arch depth and intermolar widths for the SM. The largest limits of agreement were in the
models printed in the middle were potentially higher mesial-distal measurements for the 100 HC vs 100 SC
than those printed in the corners. Although all of the comparison. In evaluating 20 comparisons of the hollow
differences recorded were small for models in the vs solid models, 12 presented with positive values, which
middle vs the corner of the build plate, the differences demonstrated a relatively balanced difference of the
in these 2 variables were more apparent than those means. This finding suggests that there was not a size
found when evaluating the thicknesses in the z-axis or difference between the hollow and solid models. Similar
when comparing the solid vs hollow models. This trend to the other variables tested, the largest mean differ-
showed that the models printed in the middle of the ences and limits of agreements were found in the arch
plate can be larger than those printed in the corners of measurements. 3D printing with hollow models vs solid
the plate. This finding could be important if one were models may mean significant cost savings. Although the
to try to fill the build plate with more models in order height at which each model was placed on the build plate
to print as many arches as possible at one time. in the z-axis was not standardized, the differences in

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3
426 Sherman et al

Table III. Agreement between model measurements Table IV. Agreement between model measurements
(hollow vs solid) (z-axis thickness)
Mean Limits of Mean Limits of
differences agreement differences agreement
Measurement (mm) (mm) P Measurement (mm) (mm) P
Agreement between (1) 50 HC and (2) 50 SC Agreement between (1) 100 SC and (2) 50 SC
Mesial-distal 0.001 –0.17 to 0.17 0.994 Mesial-distal 0.007 –0.19 to 0.2 0.92
Incisal-gingival 0.001 –0.06 to 0.06 0.993 Incisal-gingival –0.001 –0.07 to 0.07 0.986
Intercanine –0.03 –0.5 to 0.45 0.945 Intercanine 0.12 –0.3 to 0.54 0.766
Intermolar 0.15 –1.18 to 1.47 0.851 Intermolar 0.18 –0.7 to 1.06 0.814
Arch depth –0.01 –0.97 to 0.95 0.983 Arch depth 0 –1.0 to 1.01 0.992
Agreement between (1) 100 HC and (2) 100 SC Agreement between (1) 100 SM and (2) 50 SM
Mesial-distal –0.022 –0.73 to 0.68 0.733 Mesial-distal –0.016 –0.19 to 0.16 0.804
Incisal-gingival 0.001 –0.06 to 0.06 0.984 Incisal-gingival 0.00 –0.06 to 0.06 0.994
Intercanine –0.05 –0.56 to 0.46 0.903 Intercanine –0.03 –0.42 to 0.37 0.949
Intermolar 0.29 –0.6 to 1.18 0.699 Intermolar 0.07 –1.09 to 1.24 0.925
Arch depth 0.11 –0.95 to 1.17 0.803 Arch depth 0.08 –0.38 to 0.55 0.845
Agreement between (1) 50 HM and (2) 50 SM Agreement between (1) 100 HC and (2) 50 HC
Mesial-distal –0.006 –0.15 to 0.14 0.929 Mesial-distal –0.016 –0.73 to 0.69 0.804
Incisal-gingival –0.002 –0.13 to 0.12 0.979 Incisal-gingival 0 –0.06 to 0.06 0.994
Intercanine 0.05 –0.32 to 0.41 0.909 Intercanine 0.1 –0.39 to 0.58 0.812
Intermolar –0.08 –1.27 to 1.11 0.92 Intermolar 0.32 –0.94 to 1.59 0.679
Arch depth 0.13 –0.31 to 0.58 0.759 Arch depth 0.12 –0.79 to 1.02 0.767
Agreement between (1) 100 HM and (2) 100 SM Agreement between (1) 100 HM and (2) 50 HM
Mesial-distal –0.003 –0.18 to 0.18 0.96 Mesial-distal –0.014 –0.19 to 0.16 0.835
Incisal-gingival 0.002 –0.05 to 0.05 0.976 Incisal-gingival 0.004 –0.11 to 0.12 0.95
Intercanine 0.01 –0.26 to 0.28 0.982 Intercanine –0.06 –0.35 to 0.23 0.874
Intermolar 0.09 –0.73 to 0.92 0.902 Intermolar 0.25 –0.64 to 1.13 0.747
Arch depth 0.04 –0.91 to 0.82 0.919 Arch depth –0.09 –1.1 to 0.91 0.831
Note: The mean difference equals the (2) measurements minus the Note: The mean difference equals the (2) measurements minus the
(1) measurements. Thus, a positive value represents, on average, (1) measurements. Thus, a positive value represents, on average,
that the (2) measurements are overestimated compared with the that the (2) measurements are overestimated compared with the
(1) measurements. Conversely, a negative mean difference repre- (1) measurements. Conversely, a negative mean difference repre-
sents, on average, that the (2) measurements are underestimated sents, on average, that the (2) measurements are underestimated
compared with the (1) measurements. compared with the (1) measurements.
H, Hollow; C, corner; M, middle; S, solid. H, Hollow; C, corner; M, middle; S, solid.

price for all variations of hollow from all of the solid
models were about $65. The cost to print all of the solid
models was about $300, and the cost for the hollow was
about $235. The current pricing from the manufacturer
ranges from $1.80 for a hollow model without a base to
$3.50 for a solid model with a base as of November 2018.
The third variable analyzed and isolated was the differ-
ence in printing at the fastest setting of 100 microns vs
the slowest setting of 50 microns in the z-axis (Table
IV). Like the previous variables, the only measurements
that appeared to be higher were in the arch dimension.
All of the tooth measurements were small in comparison
with the mean differences and the limits of agreement.
Mean differences in the tooth measurements varied
from 0.0 mm to 0.03 mm. The smallest limit of agreement
were –0.06 to 0.06 mm. This result was found in both the
incisal-gingival measurements for the 100 SM vs 50 SM
comparison as well as the 100 HC vs 50 HC comparison.
The largest limits of agreement were found in the 100
HC vs 50 HC comparison in the mesial-distal measure-
ments at –0.56 mm to 0.55 mm. Of the 20 comparisons
that were used in evaluating the fastest (100 microns)
and the slowest (50 microns) settings, 10 of the mean dif-
ferences had a positive number, which demonstrated
acceptable differences in size in the 100-micron vs the
50-micron models. Because the measurements from these
2 model sets did not differ, the data suggest that printing
at a lower resolution is not critical. In addition, this would
allow for faster print speed without sacrificing accuracy.
Finally, 2 of 4 comparisons of the intermolar widths
were on the higher end of clinically acceptable. They
were both positive, which indicated that the 50-micron
models could be slightly wider than the 100-micron
models for the intermolar width.
The higher variations in the arch measurements as
compared with the tooth measurements were a subject
of study limitation. As a reminder, all measurements of
the physical models were calibrated digitally and
measured to the nearest 0.01 mm directly from the

March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sherman et al
models, except for arch measurements. Those were
measured using the digital caliper from a 1:1 scale
photocopy of the occlusal view. The arch measurements
were done with the photocopy in order to assist with
consistency. However, 1 problem did present itself
when obtaining these measurements. Unlike the tooth
measurements, the paper being measured for the arch
measurements was flat and did not have physical
tangible landmarks to measure. This created a difficulty
when determining exactly where a cusp tip lands and
could be related to the ability of the 3D printed models
to reflect light.20,21 In addition, in order to follow the
methodology of Brown et al,15 a digital caliper was
used to obtain the measurements. Once scanning tech-
nology has been validated, future studies may consider
digital-based measuring techniques.
This study investigated the accuracy of the DLP
printer when using it to print as efficiently and econom-
ically as possible. In order to do this, 120 maxillary and
120 mandibular models were used to assess (1) the accu-
racy of the DLP printer, the JUELL 3D Flash OC, when
printing on the edges of the build plate; (2) the accuracy
of the DLP printer, the JUELL 3D Flash OC, when print-
ing at the high-speed setting in the z-axis; and (3) the
accuracy of DLP printer when printing with less resin
because of hollow model shells. Based on these findings,
the JUELL 3D Flash OC DLP printer printed with accu-
racy on all areas of the build plate, at the fastest setting,
and with hollow shells that used less resin.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There was high reproducibility, as the repeated mea-
surement error was low for all tooth and arch
dimension measurements on all types of printed
dental models.
2. The mean differences between all of the model
printing variations were small and statistically insig-
nificant.
3. The models printed in the center and the corners of
the build plate produced clinically acceptable accu-
racy for all recorded measurements.
4. The models printed at 50 and 100 microns produced
clinically acceptable accuracy for all recorded mea-
surements.
5. The models printed with a hollow shell and those
that were solid produced clinically acceptable accu-
racy for all recorded measurements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Drs Lynna Van and Brock Frazee
for their kind assistance with data collection.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
427
REFERENCES
1. Profitt WR, Ackerman JL. Orthodontic diagnosis: the development
of a problem list. In: Profitt WR, Fields HW, editors. Contemporary
Orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.; 2000. p. 148-95.
2. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, El-Ezz AMA, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR,
Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: an alternative
to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:259-65.
3. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity
of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional
and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod
2003;73:301-6.
4. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on
digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic
review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:1-16.
5. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW.
Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study
models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis
and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-
thop 2006;129:794-803.
6. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison
of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental
casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.e1-4; discus-
sion 16.
7. Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accu-
racy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measure-
ments. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:269-73.
8. Kim J, Heo G, Lagrav!ere MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models
compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomogra-
phy. Angle Orthod 2014;84:443-50.
9. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der
Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear
measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and
cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:140-7.
10. Fl€
ugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision
of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral
digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Den-
tofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8.
11. Akyalcin S, Cozad BE, English JD, Colville CD, Laman S. Diagnostic
accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofa-
cial Orthop 2013;144:916-22.
12. Jacob HB, Wyatt GD, Buschang PH. Reliability and validity of in-
traoral and extraoral scanners. Prog Orthod 2015;16:38.
13. Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H. Accuracy of
printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and
different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2017;151:1178-87.
14. Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY. Precision
and trueness of dental models manufactured with different
3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-
thop 2018;153:144-53.
15. Brown GB, Currier GF, Kadioglu O, Kierl JP. Accuracy of
3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital
intraoral impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;
154:733-9.
16. Cuperus AMR, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG,
Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a vali-
dation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:308-13.
17. Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M.
Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy
of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12:16-20.
March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3
428
18. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility
of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping
techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108-15.
19. Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim WC, Kim JH, Kim HY. Accuracy and precision
of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-
dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intrao-
ral scanning technique. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:69-76.
20. Wan Hassan WNW, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA. Comparison of recon-
structed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional
printing and conventional stone models with different
March 2020 ! Vol 157 ! Issue 3 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sherman et al
degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;
151:209-18.
21. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster,
digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008;
35:191-201: discussion 175.
22. American Association of Orthodontists. Pretreatment considerations:
diagnostic records. 2017. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Available at: https://marketing.aaoinfo.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-
2019.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2018.