ABSTRACT
EVALUATION OF FIT FOR 3D PRINTED RETAINERS AS COMPARED TO THERMOFORM RETAINERS
By David Cole, D.M.D.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Dentistry at Virginia Commonwealth University
Thesis Directors: Eser Tüfekçi, D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D., M.S.H.A.
Professor, Department of Orthodontics
Sompop Bencharit, D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director of Digital Dentistry, Department of General Practice
Introduction: Despite recent advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing, little information is available on 3D printed retainers
Methods: Three reference models were used to fabricate traditional vacuum formed, commercially-available vacuum formed, and 3D printed retainers. For each model, three retainers were made using the three methods (a total of 27 retainers). To determine the trueness, the distances between the intaglio surface of the retainers and the occlusal surface of the reference models were measured using an engineering software. A small difference was indicative of a good fit.
Results: Average differences of the traditional vacuum formed retainers ranged from 0.10 to 0.20mm. The commercially-available and 3D printed retainers had a range of 0.10 to 0.30mm and 0.10 to 0.40mm, respectively.
Conclusions: The traditional vacuum formed retainers showed the least amount of deviation from the original reference models while the 3D printed retainers showed the greatest deviation
