Accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3D printed orthodontic models finalized to clear aligners production, testing crowded and spaced dentition

Table 1 Comparison of Root mean-squared (RMS) values of trueness of models with diastema and edentulous spaces (DEM) and models with crowded dentition(CM) prototyped with different 3D printers

3D Printers	N	Groups	RMS (mm)	SD	95% C.I		Significance
3D Printers	N	Groups	RMS (mm)	SD	Lower limit	Upper limit	Significance
Asiga Pro 4k65 (a)	10	DEM	0,154 (b,c,d)	0,019	0,140	0,168	p < 0.001
Photon M3 (b)	10	DEM	0,208 (a,c,d)	0,017	0,196	0,221
Form 3B (c)	10	DEM	0,083 (a,b)	0,008	0,077	0,090
Vector 3SP (d)	10	DEM	0,080 (a,b)	0,006	0,075	0,086
Asiga Pro 4k65 (a)	10	CM	0,155 (b,c,d)	0,012	0,145	0,164	p < 0.001
Photon M3 (b)	10	CM	0,214 (a,c,d)	0,015	0,203	0,225
Form 3B (c)	10	CM	0,082 (a,b)	0,009	0,075	0,088
Vector 3SP (d)	10	CM	0,078 (a,b)	0,010	0,070	0,086

Significance set at p < 0.05 and based on one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons tests a, b, c, d = identifiers for post-hoc comparisons tests
N Sample number, SD Standard deviation, C.I coefficient interval

ISSN: 1472-6831