Print Accuracy: Hardware, Software or User Dependent?

[MushMaster]

As the title already suggests, where is most of the (lab side) accuracy derived from? Reason for asking is because I currently have to outsource my printing jobs and get seriously triggered by the inconsistency in the tightness at which the removable die fits in the model. One time it wiggles, another time I need David Copperfield to remove it from the model.

It is time to do this job in-house, have my eyes on the SOL LCD 3D Printer sold by Roland (made by Ackuretta),but wonder to what extend I can improve the inconsistency/accuracy I currently experience? Is that truly the hardware (printer) only, or has it a lot to do with the user? And if so, in what way? It is a little confusing to me as I hear some people say that 3D printing is 'finicky' which I believe seeing what I get back, yet others seem to get very acceptable results.

Acceptable for me would mean that a removable die in model has some draw but seats solidly. Same for a model with digital implant replica/analog socket as that is what I'll be doing with it most at this point in time.

What would you deem important (from own experience if possible) to produce a printing job that produces the same result time after time?

 

[Brett Hansen CDT]

As the title already suggests, where is most of the (lab side) accuracy derived from? Reason for asking is because I currently have to outsource my printing jobs and get seriously triggered by the inconsistency in the tightness at which the removable die fits in the model. One time it wiggles, another time I need David Copperfield to remove it from the model.

It is time to do this job in-house, have my eyes on the SOL LCD 3D Printer sold by Roland (made by Ackuretta),but wonder to what extend I can improve the inconsistency/accuracy I currently experience? Is that truly the hardware (printer) only, or has it a lot to do with the user? And if so, in what way? It is a little confusing to me as I hear some people say that 3D printing is 'finicky' which I believe seeing what I get back, yet others seem to get very acceptable results.

Acceptable for me would mean that a removable die in model has some draw but seats solidly. Same for a model with digital implant replica/analog socket as that is what I'll be doing with it most at this point in time.

What would you deem important (from own experience if possible) to produce a printing job that produces the same result time after time?

We have an Asiga 4K printer. Consistency has been spot on. The only issues we have had are just learning the basics of printing. Once we ironed those out, everything has been like clockwork. Accuracy with many printers is excellent. We do not print our models with removable dies. We print solid models and a separate die. This eliminates any issues with how the die fits in the model. With the printing software for our Asiga, I can make it so any interference between the soft tissue and the crowns is eliminated on the printed model. This method works well in our lab.

 

[rkm rdt]

If you want consistency then print a solid model and a separate die.

 

[Andrew Priddy]

If you want consistency then print a solid model and a separate die.

yep.. and the Ackuretta is a sweet machine

 

[zero_zero]

It depends on a variety of factors, hardware is one of them, however if you are able to get to know your hardware, it's shortcomings could be alleviated. I was able to print models in accuracy and quality on par (if not better) with $$$ "dental" printers, using cheapo open hardware. There's a long thread on here somewhere which goes into details, IIRC

 

[Car 54]

yep.. and the Ackuretta is a sweet machine

I watched this video a week or two ago, and was impressed

 

[sirmorty]

Like others have said. You need to print solid because there is no consistency.
You basically have no choice because that is the way it's done. So you do your best with the tools that you have.

The Sol is pretty easy to use and can use a bunch of different resins. Also handy with the different build platform sizes to shorten print times if you need to.

I'm not really a fan of the slicing software. They want you to pay a subscription but you can get by with the basic.
Just kind of annoying that they changed to that recently but so has every other company.
$300 for the year. It's not a lot of money but you used to not have to pay for anything.

 

[bigj1972]

I'm not really a fan of the slicing software. They want you to pay a subscription but you can get by with the basic.
Just kind of annoying that they changed to that recently but so has every other company.
$300 for the year. It's not a lot of money but you used to not have to pay for anything.

That's crazy!!!

Nickel and Dime you to death.

 

[DaveId]

We print models with removable dies all day every day, once you dial in the parameters for your specific printer (we did most on the Carbons before, now migrated to our Heygears Hive) you can get reliable, reproducible prints. It comes down to die to model spacer and friction bars. We err on the side of too tight and scrape the friction bars until we get a good tight fit with no wiggling. Though I am sure some will come and argue that our models aren't really accurate, but if that were the case we would have more remakes on our digital side and would have inspected the models and had red flags up by now.

 

[MushMaster]

Hey, thanks for all your input.. And as such, more questions have arisen.

Solid model with seperate die is the way we are used to and will continue this digitally. However, what is your experience with the analog replicas? Can anyone elaborate on their experience with implant parts and/or the soft tissue? If so, what system and material combo do you use if you don't mind me ask?

 

[Andrew Priddy]

We print models with removable dies all day every day, once you dial in the parameters for your specific printer (we did most on the Carbons before, now migrated to our Heygears Hive) you can get reliable, reproducible prints. It comes down to die to model spacer and friction bars. We err on the side of too tight and scrape the friction bars until we get a good tight fit with no wiggling. Though I am sure some will come and argue that our models aren't really accurate, but if that were the case we would have more remakes on our digital side and would have inspected the models and had red flags up by now.

i can get the removable die "nuts on" (gnat sized nuts) im also going to argue that it is less accurate
but, there is absolutely no need to go thru the "extra processing work"to save what? .003ml resin?

 

[Brett Hansen CDT]

Hey, thanks for all your input.. And as such, more questions have arisen.

Solid model with seperate die is the way we are used to and will continue this digitally. However, what is your experience with the analog replicas? Can anyone elaborate on their experience with implant parts and/or the soft tissue? If so, what system and material combo do you use if you don't mind me ask?

First off, don't do soft tissue. I did at first and found it was a lot of trouble for zero gain. When you design these cases, you can design the model to take into account the abutment and crown design below the tissue and it will remove it. I think i have it set to give me .1mm of space around my abutment and crown in the tissue area.

Keep in mind that any IO implant case you get, the scan body the doc uses will determine the workflow for you at the lab. I highly recommend you have a stock of scan bodies for whoever mills your custom abutments so you can give those to your accounts. Printed model analogs are not the same as conventional analogs. On top of that, there is a wide range of different digital analogs out there. which one you need is all predicated on what scan body the doc used(see above). I never had any luck with Core3D digital analogs. Imagine's digital analogs are great! Vulcan's digital analogs are great! Elos digtial analogs are great! Straumann digital analogs are terrible(they fit loosely and you can turn them in the model if you apply too much torque). I use the same settings for all these analogs.