Additive Manufacturing: A Comparative Analysis of Dimensional Accuracy and Skin Texture Reproduction of Auricular Prostheses Replicas

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 28; no. 2; pp. e460 - e468
• Main Authors: Unkovskiy, Alexey, Spintzyk, Sebastian, Axmann, Detlef, Engel, Eva‐Maria, Weber, Heiner, Huettig, Fabian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2019
• Subjects: Additive manufacturing; Auricular prosthesis; Comparative analysis; Datasets; digital workflow; facial prosthesis; fused deposition modeling; Maxillofacial; maxillofacial rehabilitation; Prostheses; Prosthetics; Rapid prototyping; Reproduction; Skin; digital workflow; fused deposition modeling; Auricular prosthesis; rapid prototyping; facial prosthesis; maxillofacial rehabilitation
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12681

Purpose The use of computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and additive manufacturing in maxillofacial prosthetics has been widely acknowledged. Rapid prototyping can be considered for manufacturing of auricular prostheses. Therefore, so‐called prostheses replicas can be fabricated by digital means. The objective of this study was to identify a superior additive manufacturing method to fabricate auricular prosthesis replicas (APRs) within a digital workflow. Materials and Methods Auricles of 23 healthy subjects (mean age of 37.8 years) were measured in vivo with respect to an anthropometrical protocol. Landmarks were volumized with fiducial balls for 3D scanning using a handheld structured light scanner. The 3D CAD dataset was postprocessed, and the same anthropometrical measurements were made in the CAD software with the digital lineal. Each CAD dataset was materialized using fused deposition modeling (FDM), selective laser sintering (SLS), and stereolithography (SL), constituting 53 APR samples. All distances between the landmarks were measured on the APRs. After the determination of the measurement error within the five data groups (in vivo, CAD, FDM, SLS, and SL), the mean values were compared using matched pairs method. To this, the in vivo and CAD dataset were set as references. Finally, the surface structure of the APRs was qualitatively evaluated with stereomicroscopy and profilometry to ascertain the level of skin detail reproduction. Results The anthropometrical approach showed drawbacks in measuring the protrusion of the ear's helix. The measurement error within all groups of measurements was calculated between 0.20 and 0.28 mm, implying a high reproducibility. The lowest mean differences of 53 produced APRs were found in FDM (0.43%) followed by SLS (0.54%) and SL (0.59%)––compared to in vivo, and again in FDM (0.20%) followed by SL (0.36%) and SLS (0.39%)––compared to CAD. None of these values exceed the threshold of clinical relevance (1.5%); however, the qualitative evaluation revealed slight shortcomings in skin reproduction for all methods: reproduction of skin details exceeding 0.192 mm in depth was feasible. Conclusion FDM showed the superior dimensional accuracy and best skin surface reproduction. Moreover, digital acquisition and CAD postprocessing seem to play a more important role in the outcome than the additive manufacturing method used.