| dc.description.abstract | State of Problem. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the supply chain, causing shortages of isopropyl alcohol (IPA), the gold standard wash solvent in resin 3D printing. Alternative rinsing agents have been suggested by the 3D printing community; however, there is limited data evaluating the efficacy of these alternative solvents.
Purpose. This study evaluates the influence of IPA alternative rinsing solvents on the manufacturing accuracy of dental models printed with LCD resin 3D printer.
Materials and Methods. A Frasaco maxillary typodont was scanned in a laboratory scanner to create a master file. 46 models were printed in an LCD 3D printer. One master model was fabricated (IPA). Three separate groups (n = 15) of alternative solvents were fabricated and rinsed Mean Green, Yellow Magic 7, and propylene glycol. Specimens were scanned and exported into a 3D comparison software to measure deviations from the master model. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections (α= 0.05).
Results. Mean error across the propylene glycol group ranged from 0.0009mm² to 0.0137mm² (median= 0.0045, IQR= 0.0029). The Yellow Magic 7 group had the second highest average error, ranging from 0.0056mm² to 0.0100mm² (median= 0.0081, IQR=0.0020), and the Mean Green group had highest average error ranging from 0.0015mm² to 0.0141mm² (median= 0.0111, IQR= 0.0034). Group comparisons using non-parametric comparisons showed statistically significant differences between the propylene glycol group and the Yellow Magic 7 group (P<.001, P=.001) and the PG group and the Mean Green group (P=0.005, P=0.016). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the Yellow Magic 7 and Mean Green groups (P=0.366). Conclusions. The propylene glycol group had the lowest mean error thus producing the most accurate dental models in comparison to the Mean Green and the Yellow Magic 7 groups. The obtained results suggest future studies should compare IPA and propylene glycol to see if there is a significant difference.
Clinical implications. All groups were within the clinically acceptable range of discrepancy. | |
