Date of Award
Spring 4-27-2026
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Science (MS)
Department
Dentistry
First Advisor
Ayman Ahmed
Second Advisor
Meisam Omidi
Third Advisor
Michael Karczewski
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of occlusal splints fabricated by the different materials with different 3D printers in four different orientations (0°, 15°, 25°, 40°) using surface matching software. Materials and Methods: Occlusal splints were printed in 4 different orientations including 0°, 15°, 25°, and 40° based on the STL file of the designed occlusal splint with 3 different printers (Carbon® M3Max, SprintRay Pro S, Asiga Pro4K). A total of 120 occlusal splints were printed for the present study, 10 occlusal splints were printed for each group. Then all occlusal splints were scanned using the same scanner (E4). All STL files were then superimposed with the original file. The dimensional differences between the sample STL files and the master design file were computed, and the values of root mean square (RMS) (measured in mm, absolute value) were calculated to represent overall congruency. The lower the RMS value, the more accurate the specimen, when compared with the master design file. A two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the effects of: Printer (Asiga Pro4K, Carbon® M3Max, SprintRay Pro S), Build orientation (0°, 15°, 25°, 40°), and Printer × orientation interaction. Tukey HSD analysis was used to confirm significant differences between all printer pairs. Results: Root Mean Square (RMS) deviation was predefined as the primary outcome measure of trueness. Across all orientations, Carbon® M3Max demonstrated the lowest RMS deviations, followed by Asiga Pro4K, whereas SprintRay Pro S exhibited the highest deviations and the greatest variability. At 0°, mean RMS values were 0.0785 ± 0.0028 mm for Carbon® M3Max, 0.1690 ± 0.0393 mm for Asiga Pro4K, and 0.2600 ± 0.0564 mm for SprintRay Pro S. The percentage of the surface within ±0.20 mm followed a similar trend, with Carbon® M3Max consistently exceeding 89% across orientations and reaching 97.7% at 0°, whereas SprintRay Pro S demonstrated substantially lower conformity at 0° (59.7%). Two-way ANOVA demonstrated that printer type was the dominant determinant of trueness (partial η² = 0.834), accounting for approximately 83% of the explainable variance in RMS deviation. Orientation demonstrated a moderate effect (partial η² = 0.328), while the interaction effect was also large (partial η² = 0.637). Conclusion: Carbon® M3Max (CLIP) demonstrated superior dimensional trueness across orientations, followed by Asiga Pro4K(DLP) whereas SprintRay Pro S(DLP) exhibited greater orientation sensitivity and variability. Orientation adjustments improved trueness in certain systems but did not eliminate inherent inter-printer differences. The present study showed the highest trueness at 25° from platform for Asiga Pro4K and at 40° from platform for SprintRay Pro S.