Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates printing technology influence on occlusal splint accuracy, suggesting LCD as a feasible choice.
Additive manufacturing has expanded the fabrication of occlusal splints; however, the influence of printing technology and build orientation on accuracy remains unclear. This study evaluated the effect of printing technology (Liquid Crystal Display [LCD] and Digital Light Processing [DLP]) and build orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°) on the trueness of additively manufactured occlusal splints under standardized conditions. A maxillary occlusal splint was digitally designed from a scanned typodont and used as the reference model. Specimens (n = 10/group) were fabricated using two LCD printers (Ackuretta SOL, Phrozen Mini 8K S) and one DLP printer (SprintRay Pro 95S) with a single photopolymer resin (KeySplint Soft). All samples were printed at 100 µm layer thickness and subjected to standardized post-processing. Trueness was assessed by comparing scanned splints to the reference STL using Geomagic Control X and expressed as root mean square (RMS) values. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Printing technology and build orientation significantly affected trueness (p < 0.001), with RMS values increasing as build orientation increased, and no significant interaction between factors (p > 0.05). LCD systems demonstrated lower RMS values than the DLP system across all orientations. Within the limitations of this study, both factors influenced trueness; however, all systems produced clinically comparable results, supporting the use of LCD technology as a cost-effective option for occlusal splint fabrication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammamy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: