Chemical treatment in 3D dental model production for clear aligners via additive manufacturing: a comprehensive evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Stereolithography (SLA) additive manufacturing (AM) technique has enabled the production of inconspicuous and aesthetically pleasing orthodontics that are also hygienic. However, the staircase effect poses a challenge to the application of invisible orthodontics in the dental industry. The purpose of this study is to implement chemical postprocessing technique by using isopropyl alcohol as a solvent to overcome this challenge. Design/methodology/approach Fifteen experiments were conducted using a D-optimal design to investigate the effect of different concentrations and postprocessing times on the surface roughness, material removal rate (MRR), hardness and cost of SLA dental parts required for creating a clear customized aligner, and a container was constructed for chemical treatment of these parts made from photocurable resin. Findings The study revealed that the chemical postprocessing technique can significantly improve the surface roughness of dental SLA parts, but improper selection of concentration and time can lead to poor surface roughness. The optimal surface roughness was achieved with a concentration of 90 and a time of 37.5. Moreover, the dental part with the lowest concentration and time (60% and 15 min, respectively) had the lowest MRR and the highest hardness. The part with the highest concentration and time required the greatest budget allocation. Finally, the results of the multiobjective optimization analysis aligned with the experimental data. Originality/value This paper sheds light on a previously underestimated aspect, which is the pivotal role of chemical postprocessing in mitigating the adverse impact of stair case effect. This nuanced perspective contributes to the broader discourse on AM methodologies, establishing a novel pathway for advancing the capabilities of SLA in dental application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".