In an era of digital dentistry, the physical model remains a critical tool for verification, articulation, and the fabrication of many restorations. The choice between gypsum products and 3D-printed resins is more than a matter of preference—it's a decision that directly impacts the fit and function of the final prosthesis. For the dental laboratory, selecting the right model material is fundamental to quality control.
Type IV and V Dental Stone: The Analog Gold Standard
Gypsum products, specifically Type IV (Die Stone) and Type V (High-Strength, High-Expansion Die Stone), are the bedrock of traditional model work.
-
Chemistry & Setting Expansion: The controlled setting expansion of these stones is their key feature. Type V stones are engineered with additives to provide higher expansion (up to 0.30%), which precisely compensates for the solidification shrinkage of base metal alloys, ensuring a passively fitting metal framework.
-
Key Properties:
-
Surface Hardness: Crucial for resistance to abrasion during die trimming and margin marking.
-
Compressive Strength: Prevents fracture during the application of pressing or milling forces.
-
Color: Contrasting colors help in distinguishing the die from the base, improving visibility of preparation margins.
-
3D-Printed Resin Models: The Digital Contender
With the rise of digital impressions, 3D-printed models have become ubiquitous. Their performance hinges on the resin chemistry and printing technology.
-
Accuracy and Resolution: Modern DLP/LCD and SLA printers can produce models with exceptional dimensional accuracy, rivaling and sometimes surpassing traditional stone.
-
Material Properties of Resins:
-
Biocompatibility: Essential for models that will contact analog gingiva or other materials.
-
Cremodiene Layer Compatibility: The model resin must be resistant to the adhesives used for attaching cremodiene layers for pressing.
-
Thermal Stability: Must withstand the heat and pressure of processes like milling or pressing without distortion.
-
Making the Strategic Choice: Stone vs. Resin
The decision is workflow-dependent:
-
Choose Stone for its proven track record with metal alloys, its familiar handling, and when working from a physical impression.
-
Choose Resin for a seamless digital workflow (from STL to physical model), faster turnaround times, and the ability to engineer specific properties (e.g., flexibility for implant models with snap-on dies).
Conclusion
Whether utilizing the time-tested reliability of high-strength gypsum or the streamlined efficiency of 3D-printed resins, the laboratory's goal remains unchanged: to produce a dimensionally accurate and robust foundation for restorative fabrication. Understanding the technical capabilities of each material is the first step.