Zzyzx
5
This is not going to yield a sufficiently accurate model for most restorations. Sorry.
I’m curious what you are currently using for a printer? You are absolutely correct about your statement.
Zzyzx
7
Chris,
We use a number of different strategies for model making. But without making specific endorsements - not a nice thing to do in my position - any decent DLP SLA will give you good results. Great results are possible with care. Being able to check and control exposure and scaling are crucial to get dims correct.
Of course the big name machines are mostly capable of this. But let me encourage all to look into the small open systems. I shop heavily for research and comparison. Increasingly there are inexpensive systems that can do the job quite nicely.
I couldn’t agree more with what you are saying small open systems! This model is from a small open system and we have proven to out preformed large SLA and main stream DLP systems all day long.
Zzyzx
9
Looking good! What’s the material?
Here’s some of mine.
Very nice also, did you run those in a vertical position? We use Dreve resins. Consistent, high quality resins, I can’t say enough about them.
I use a Titan I. I had to do away with their printing vat and replace this with a 15cm diameter borosilicate glass petri dish, which is held in by a rubber ring and a plastic bracket. I always print onto a roughened 3mm acrylic sheet which is attached to the print platform. This way there exists a perfect bond in the first layer of resin curing directly onto the acrylic base plate. This also eliminates any warpage problems. I have opted out of using computer generated base plates and die design, since this adds another hour to the printing process. I only print a thin rim of the dental arch (digitally cut dies though) directly onto the base plate. The base plate is then pinned and based in the normal traditional way.
1 Like
I agree with this. Developments in the additive manufacturing industry is larger than just dentistry, cheaper non-dental printers can handle the jobs just fine. This also works for software. Although dental software is very sophisticated, non-dental software can also be used to make and print a dental model with relative ease.
The problem though is obtaining the STL file from the client, which at this stage is still highly encrypted by the various stake holders.
Nice job. Contrary to what the big brand name printers make us believe, non-dental printers can handle the job just as well. I get prints with incredible fine detail at 25 microns. Most dental intra-oral scanners I am aware of can only do 50 microns.
I use “Fun to Do” resin. A fraction of the cost for dental resin, just as accurate…super fast cure time. very low shrinkage.
In my experience, as a ceramist, a model is still key to building up, say 6 front teeth. At this stage there is no way that subtractive manufacture can give the same results.
As far as your comment “FDA on the hunt for lab owners”: I am not sure if a 3D resin dental model is a toxic issue which is used for constructing a crown. Besides, the dentist can, by the click of his mouse, outsource the work to a third world country anyway.
DLP printing with resin is highly accurate, in my experience.
There is no regulations on dental models and most like won’t be. I was referring more to appliances like a surgical guide or a splint.
Yes, that is correct. I have been to a couple of talks held by “Inside 3D Printing” where they touched on this specific subject. The 3D printing industry as a whole is still in a process of developing its ‘set of rules’ to protect consumers.
What I posted is at 50 microns and done in about 1.5 hours I would not waste my time printing 25 microns it takes too long. Yes it makes a nice model but it is overkill. Just for disclosure here I have a dental specific machine that it was printed on but it is an open system either way.
Zzyzx
20
No. These are run on the horizontal. It not only shortens machine time but also improves accuracy. This is confirmed by scanning the part and comparing it against the original mesh.
Also, this is is my own resin, so I have pure control over any adequate printer using photopolymer. When you are serious about accuracy, the resin must be tuned to the system.
Zzyzx
21
Just to add here: there is no FDA approved photopolymer based fixed restoration material. Removable is here to some extent, nightguards, RPDs etc. NextDent in Europe has limited clearance for crown material ( not that it’s beautiful- sorry Rik). But model and pattern materials do not fall under medical device regulation as they are not a part of the final device.
When you say my ‘own resin’, is this something you formulated with various acrylic monomers?
Zzyzx
23
Yes. That’s correct to a degree. There is more to it than that however. A bit the same as saying ‘yes’ to “you make spaghetti sauce with tomatoes?”. 
To be plain, I not only print a lot. But so much so that I started a company a few years back making additive materials for open systems.
Does anyone have a reference for proving that you don’t need to use FDA approved materials for working models. Thanks.
