152
the formulation: part A- PDMS chains (70% long, 20% medium, and 10% short)
with 5% catalyst and part B- PDMS chains (80% long, 15% medium and 5% short)
with 5% crosslinker and for each part 20% w/w of surface-treated silica filler was
added (Jindal et al. 2018).
On the other hand, Unkovskiy et al. (2018) presented a complete digital workflow for the manufacture of a nasal prosthesis from a pure solvent-free silicone
(ACEO Silicone General Purpose; Wacker Chemie AG, in the process of toxicological approval). The 3D technology used for this purpose was based on platinumcatalyzed addition polymerization (Drop-on-Demand ACEO; Wacker Chemie AG).
For data acquisition, two scanning system were used: a stationery 3D photogrammetry system for a full-face image and overall proportions, and a portable structured
light scanner for acquiring the anatomy of the nasal defect (Unkovskiy et al. 2018).
Bartellas et al. (2018) produced a prototype obturator using low-cost materials
and freely available software with the goal of restoring a defect in the oral cavity.
The obturator was made from two different materials: white pearl PLA filament and
M3D Tough 3D Ink (FLX). The cost of the experiment was C$ 509.80 (including
the cost of the printer, C$ 500), and the obtained device was considered satisfactory
by the research team (maxillofacial and oral surgeon, otolaryngologist and reconstructive surgeon). Unfortunately, Bartellas et al. (2018) highlighted that none of the
material used was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
no other 3D printed material has been approved by the FDA for oral prosthetic
use so far.
7.3.4 3D Printed Polymers for Orthodontics
3D printing technology with PMMA resin became very popular in orthodontics for
the manufacture of dental models suitable for diagnosis and treatment planning
(Hazeveld et al. 2014) or clear aligners offering patients more aesthetic, pleasant
and easy to maintain orthodontic treatments compared to the traditional dental
appliance, as well as guides for quick attachment of appliances (indirect attachment trays).
Cole et al. (2019) compared three different methods for manufacturing clear
retainers: the 3D printed method, the commercially available vacuum-formed
method and the traditional vacuum-formed method. These authors found a smaller
deviation from the original reference models with respect to the commercial method,
but the other methods were also acceptable, with a clinically acceptable tolerance of
0.5 mm (Cole et al. 2019).
PEEK due to their remarkable properties can be used for the manufacture of
aesthetic orthodontic wires, which are capable of supplying higher orthodontic
forces in a cross section similar to metallic cables such as cobalt/chromium (Co/Cr),
molybdenum/Ti (Mo/Ti) and nickel/Ti (Ni/Ti) (Najeeb et al. 2016).
C. M. Cristache and E. E. Totu
the formulation: part A- PDMS chains (70% long, 20% medium, and 10% short)
with 5% catalyst and part B- PDMS chains (80% long, 15% medium and 5% short)
with 5% crosslinker and for each part 20% w/w of surface-treated silica filler was
added (Jindal et al. 2018).
On the other hand, Unkovskiy et al. (2018) presented a complete digital workflow for the manufacture of a nasal prosthesis from a pure solvent-free silicone
(ACEO Silicone General Purpose; Wacker Chemie AG, in the process of toxicological approval). The 3D technology used for this purpose was based on platinumcatalyzed addition polymerization (Drop-on-Demand ACEO; Wacker Chemie AG).
For data acquisition, two scanning system were used: a stationery 3D photogrammetry system for a full-face image and overall proportions, and a portable structured
light scanner for acquiring the anatomy of the nasal defect (Unkovskiy et al. 2018).
Bartellas et al. (2018) produced a prototype obturator using low-cost materials
and freely available software with the goal of restoring a defect in the oral cavity.
The obturator was made from two different materials: white pearl PLA filament and
M3D Tough 3D Ink (FLX). The cost of the experiment was C$ 509.80 (including
the cost of the printer, C$ 500), and the obtained device was considered satisfactory
by the research team (maxillofacial and oral surgeon, otolaryngologist and reconstructive surgeon). Unfortunately, Bartellas et al. (2018) highlighted that none of the
material used was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
no other 3D printed material has been approved by the FDA for oral prosthetic
use so far.
7.3.4 3D Printed Polymers for Orthodontics
3D printing technology with PMMA resin became very popular in orthodontics for
the manufacture of dental models suitable for diagnosis and treatment planning
(Hazeveld et al. 2014) or clear aligners offering patients more aesthetic, pleasant
and easy to maintain orthodontic treatments compared to the traditional dental
appliance, as well as guides for quick attachment of appliances (indirect attachment trays).
Cole et al. (2019) compared three different methods for manufacturing clear
retainers: the 3D printed method, the commercially available vacuum-formed
method and the traditional vacuum-formed method. These authors found a smaller
deviation from the original reference models with respect to the commercial method,
but the other methods were also acceptable, with a clinically acceptable tolerance of
0.5 mm (Cole et al. 2019).
PEEK due to their remarkable properties can be used for the manufacture of
aesthetic orthodontic wires, which are capable of supplying higher orthodontic
forces in a cross section similar to metallic cables such as cobalt/chromium (Co/Cr),
molybdenum/Ti (Mo/Ti) and nickel/Ti (Ni/Ti) (Najeeb et al. 2016).
C. M. Cristache and E. E. Totu