Loading…

Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques

Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three pr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2012-03, Vol.12 (1), p.16-20
Main Authors: Murugesan, K., Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham, Sharma, Sumeet Kumar, Vasantha Kumar, M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933
container_end_page 20
container_issue 1
container_start_page 16
container_title The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
container_volume 12
creator Murugesan, K.
Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham
Sharma, Sumeet Kumar
Vasantha Kumar, M.
description Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three prototype models with a 3D STL (standard template library) image. In this study the STL file was used to produce three different rapid prototype models namely; model 1—fused deposition model (FDM) using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), model 2—Polyjet using a clear resin and model 3—a 3 dimensional printing using a composite material. Measurements were made at various anatomical points. For surface detail reproductions the models were subjected to scanning electron microscopy analysis. The dimensions of the model created by Polyjet were closest to the 3D STL virtual image followed by the 3DP model and FDM. SEM analysis showed uniform smooth surface on Polyjet model with adequate surface details.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3332309</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2660315901</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhB3BBlrj0kjKOncS-IFXbQpGKQLCcLceedF1l42AnK-2Nn46jLVVB4mDZ1jzzzsdLyGsG5wygeZcYZ4oVwJYDvJBPyIopJQsBVfOUrEA15fIuT8iLlO4AKglSPCcnJRdCKVGvyK912I0mmsnvkV7tTT_nZxho6Oil3-GQlo8ZHP0-x85YpJc4Gd_TC2vnaOxhAT8Hh32iX2Nws0VH2wPdbCNm1ncdRhwm-s2M3i3EFKbDiHSDdjv4nzOml-RZZ_qEr-7vU_Ljw9VmfV3cfPn4aX1xU1guK1k0rALEEprOKrSyVZWQ0jmplKvAOAV1xau8jtZwUVps6xZs3dWOicYoqTg_Je-PuuPc7tDZ3FU0vR6j35l40MF4_Xdk8Ft9G_aac15yUFng7F4ghqXxSe98stj3ZsAwJ52LC84VlCKjb_9B78IchzyeZsDy7jlrFkF2pGwMKUXsHpphoBd_9dFfnf3Vi79a5pw3j6d4yPhjaAbKI5ByaLjF-Lj0_1R_AzV3sac</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1013443179</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques</title><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess)</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Murugesan, K. ; Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham ; Sharma, Sumeet Kumar ; Vasantha Kumar, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Murugesan, K. ; Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham ; Sharma, Sumeet Kumar ; Vasantha Kumar, M.</creatorcontrib><description>Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three prototype models with a 3D STL (standard template library) image. In this study the STL file was used to produce three different rapid prototype models namely; model 1—fused deposition model (FDM) using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), model 2—Polyjet using a clear resin and model 3—a 3 dimensional printing using a composite material. Measurements were made at various anatomical points. For surface detail reproductions the models were subjected to scanning electron microscopy analysis. The dimensions of the model created by Polyjet were closest to the 3D STL virtual image followed by the 3DP model and FDM. SEM analysis showed uniform smooth surface on Polyjet model with adequate surface details.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0972-4052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1998-4057</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23449946</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Dentistry ; Medicine ; Original ; Original Article</subject><ispartof>The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2012-03, Vol.12 (1), p.16-20</ispartof><rights>Indian Prosthodontic Society 2011</rights><rights>Indian Prosthodontic Society 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332309/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1013443179?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25732,27903,27904,36991,36992,44569,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23449946$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Murugesan, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Sumeet Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasantha Kumar, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques</title><title>The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society</title><addtitle>J Indian Prosthodont Soc</addtitle><addtitle>J Indian Prosthodont Soc</addtitle><description>Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three prototype models with a 3D STL (standard template library) image. In this study the STL file was used to produce three different rapid prototype models namely; model 1—fused deposition model (FDM) using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), model 2—Polyjet using a clear resin and model 3—a 3 dimensional printing using a composite material. Measurements were made at various anatomical points. For surface detail reproductions the models were subjected to scanning electron microscopy analysis. The dimensions of the model created by Polyjet were closest to the 3D STL virtual image followed by the 3DP model and FDM. SEM analysis showed uniform smooth surface on Polyjet model with adequate surface details.</description><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><issn>0972-4052</issn><issn>1998-4057</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhB3BBlrj0kjKOncS-IFXbQpGKQLCcLceedF1l42AnK-2Nn46jLVVB4mDZ1jzzzsdLyGsG5wygeZcYZ4oVwJYDvJBPyIopJQsBVfOUrEA15fIuT8iLlO4AKglSPCcnJRdCKVGvyK912I0mmsnvkV7tTT_nZxho6Oil3-GQlo8ZHP0-x85YpJc4Gd_TC2vnaOxhAT8Hh32iX2Nws0VH2wPdbCNm1ncdRhwm-s2M3i3EFKbDiHSDdjv4nzOml-RZZ_qEr-7vU_Ljw9VmfV3cfPn4aX1xU1guK1k0rALEEprOKrSyVZWQ0jmplKvAOAV1xau8jtZwUVps6xZs3dWOicYoqTg_Je-PuuPc7tDZ3FU0vR6j35l40MF4_Xdk8Ft9G_aac15yUFng7F4ghqXxSe98stj3ZsAwJ52LC84VlCKjb_9B78IchzyeZsDy7jlrFkF2pGwMKUXsHpphoBd_9dFfnf3Vi79a5pw3j6d4yPhjaAbKI5ByaLjF-Lj0_1R_AzV3sac</recordid><startdate>201203</startdate><enddate>201203</enddate><creator>Murugesan, K.</creator><creator>Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham</creator><creator>Sharma, Sumeet Kumar</creator><creator>Vasantha Kumar, M.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201203</creationdate><title>Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques</title><author>Murugesan, K. ; Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham ; Sharma, Sumeet Kumar ; Vasantha Kumar, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Murugesan, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Sumeet Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasantha Kumar, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Murugesan, K.</au><au>Anandapandian, Ponsekar Abraham</au><au>Sharma, Sumeet Kumar</au><au>Vasantha Kumar, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques</atitle><jtitle>The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society</jtitle><stitle>J Indian Prosthodont Soc</stitle><addtitle>J Indian Prosthodont Soc</addtitle><date>2012-03</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>16</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>16-20</pages><issn>0972-4052</issn><eissn>1998-4057</eissn><abstract>Rapid prototyping (RP) is a technology that produces physical models by selectively solidifying ultra violet (UV) sensitive liquid resin using a laser beam. These models can be formed using various techniques. A study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy and surface details of three prototype models with a 3D STL (standard template library) image. In this study the STL file was used to produce three different rapid prototype models namely; model 1—fused deposition model (FDM) using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), model 2—Polyjet using a clear resin and model 3—a 3 dimensional printing using a composite material. Measurements were made at various anatomical points. For surface detail reproductions the models were subjected to scanning electron microscopy analysis. The dimensions of the model created by Polyjet were closest to the 3D STL virtual image followed by the 3DP model and FDM. SEM analysis showed uniform smooth surface on Polyjet model with adequate surface details.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>23449946</pmid><doi>10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0972-4052
ispartof The journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2012-03, Vol.12 (1), p.16-20
issn 0972-4052
1998-4057
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3332309
source Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess); Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Dentistry
Medicine
Original
Original Article
title Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T17%3A15%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Evaluation%20of%20Dimension%20and%20Surface%20Detail%20Accuracy%20of%20Models%20Produced%20by%20Three%20Different%20Rapid%20Prototype%20Techniques&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20Indian%20Prosthodontic%20Society&rft.au=Murugesan,%20K.&rft.date=2012-03&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=16&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=16-20&rft.issn=0972-4052&rft.eissn=1998-4057&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13191-011-0103-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2660315901%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3858-7150ee207fc9ec8b95488dd899d50ad906535131ba342ceb6b0c6f6d147a98933%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1013443179&rft_id=info:pmid/23449946&rfr_iscdi=true