Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

3D ÇÁ¸°Æà °¢µµ¿Í Ãþ µÎ²²°¡ DLP¿Í SLA ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ·Î Ãâ·ÂÇÑ ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ Á¤È®µµ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

Effect of print orientation and layer thickness on the accuracy of printed models by DLP and printers

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀç·áÇÐȸÁö 2022³â 49±Ç 1È£ p.1 ~ 14
±è¿µ¼ö, ¼ÛÁöâ, ¹é½ÂÈ£, ±èÁø¿µ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è¿µ¼ö ( Kim Yung-Soo ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry
¼ÛÁöâ ( Song Ji-Chang ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry
¹é½ÂÈ£ ( Baek Seung-Ho ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry Department of Conservative Dentistry
±èÁø¿µ ( Kim Jin-Young ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry Dental Research Institute

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº 2°¡Áö ¼­·Î ´Ù¸¥ Á¾·ùÀÇ 3D ÇÁ¸°Å͸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÇÁ¸°Æà ·¹À̾îÀÇ µÎ²²¿Í ÇÁ¸°Æà ¹æÇâ(¸ðµ¨°ú ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ º£µåÀÇ °¢µµ)ÀÇ º¯È­°¡ ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ Á¤È®µµ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. 2±Þ ¿Íµ¿À» °¡Áø »ç°¢ Å¥ºê ÇüÅÂ¿Í Ä¡¾Æ ÇüÅÂÀÇ ¸ðµ¨À» ·¹À̾îÀÇ µÎ²²¿Í ¹æÇâÀ» ´Þ¸®ÇÏ¿© DLP ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ(IMC, Carima)¿Í SLA ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ(Form 3, Formlabs)·Î °¢°¢ Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´´Ù(n=12). Á¦ÀÛµÈ ¸ðµ¨À» ¸ðµ¨ ½ºÄ³³Ê¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© STLÆÄÀÏ·Î º¯È¯ÇÏ°í À̸¦ ¿ø·¡ÀÇ »ïÂ÷¿ø µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿Í ÁßøÇÏ¿© Á¦ÀÛµÈ ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ Áøµµ(trueness)¸¦ »ìÆ캸¾Ò´Ù. Á¦ÀÛµÈ ¸ðµ¨ Ç¥¸éÀ» ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚ Çö¹Ì°æÀ¸·Î °üÂûÇÏ¿© ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. One-way ANOVA¿Í Turkey post hocÀ¸·Î ·¹À̾îÀÇ µÎ²²¿Í ÇÁ¸°Æà ¹æÇâÀÌ Á¤È®µµ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ç°¢ Å¥ºê ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ °æ¿ì DLP ÇÁ¸°Å͸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© 0µµ °¢µµ, 50 ¥ìm µÎ²²·Î ÇÁ¸°Æà µÇ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡ °¡Àå ÀûÀº ¿ÀÂ÷(20.49 ¥ìm)¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç SLA ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ·Î 45µµ °¢µµ, 100 ¥ìm µÎ²²·Î ÇÁ¸°Æà µÇ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡ °¡Àå Å« ¿ÀÂ÷(61.03 ¥ìm)¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Ä¡¾Æ ÇüÅÂÀÇ ¸ðµ¨Àº SLA ÇÁ¸°Å͸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© 0µµ °¢µµ, 50 ¥ìm µÎ²²·Î ÇÁ¸°Æà µÇ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡ °¡Àå ÀûÀº ¿ÀÂ÷(25.63 ¥ìm)¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç DLP ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ·Î 45µµ °¢µµ, 100 ¥ìm µÎ²²·Î ÇÁ¸°Æà µÇ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡ °¡Àå Å« ¿ÀÂ÷(47.56 ¥ìm)¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. SEM À̹ÌÁö¿¡¼­ SLA ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ°¡ DLP ÇÁ¸°ÅÍ¿¡ ºñÇØ Àü¹ÝÀûÀ¸·Î ¿Ï¸¸ÇÑ Ç¥¸éÀ» Ãâ·ÂÇϴ Ư¼ºÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î 3DÇÁ¸°ÆÃÀÇ Á¤È®µµ´Â ÇÁ¸°ÅÍÀÇ Á¾·ù, ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ ÇüÅÂ, ·¹À̾îÀÇ µÎ²², ÇÁ¸°Æà ¹æÇâ¿¡ ¸ðµÎ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸¿´´Ù.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of print layer thickness and orientation of two 3D printers on the trueness of printed models. Two different models (cube and tooth form models with class II cavity) were printed with a DLP printer (IMC, Carima) and an SLA printer (Form 3, Formlabs) with different layer thickness and printing orientation (n=12). The printed models were scanned to obtain STL datasets. Trueness of the printed models relative to the reference dataset was obtained using the superimposition technique. The surface of the 3D printed models was evaluated by SEM. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc were performed. For the cube model, the overall mean trueness values were lowest by the DLP printer at 0-degree orientation in 50 ¥ìm layer thickness (20.49 ¥ìm), while the highest deviation was observed with the SLA printer at 45-degree orientation in 100 ¥ìm layer thickness (61.03 ¥ìm) (p<0.001). For the tooth-shaped model, the lowest deviation was observed with the SLA printer at 0-degree orientation in 50 ¥ìm layer thickness (25.63 ¥ìm), while the highest deviation was found with the DLP printer at 45-degree in 100 ¥ìm layer thickness (47.56 ¥ìm) (p<0.001). In SEM image, the SLA printer exhibited a relatively smoother surface compared to the DLP printer. In conclusion, the trueness was affected by the type of 3D printer, the geometry of the printing model, the thickness of the printing layer, and printing orientation for each printer.

Å°¿öµå

3D ÇÁ¸°ÆÃ; Áøµµ; Ç¥¸é ºÐ¼®; ÀûÃþ µÎ²²; Ãâ·Â °¢µµ
Three-dimensional printing; Trueness; Surface analysis; Layer thickness; Printing orientation

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI