In Vitro Comparison of Surgical Implant Placement Accuracy Using Guides Fabricated by Three Different Additive Technologies
Source abstract
Abstract
Various three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies are commercially available on the market, but the influence of different technologies on the accuracy of implant-guided surgery is unclear. Thus, three printing technologies: Stereolithographic (SLA), Digital light processing (DLP), and Polyjet were evaluated in this study. An entire 30 polyurethane models replicated the clinical situation. Ten surgical guides were printed by SLA, DLP, and PolyJet. Then, implant-guided surgery was performed, and their accuracy outcomes were measured concerning angular deviation, 3D deviation at the entry point, and apex. On top of that, the total processing time was also compared. For the angular deviation, the mean deviation was not statistically significant among all technologies. For the 3D deviation, PolyJet was statistically more accurate than DLP (p = 0.002) and SLA (p = 0.017) at the entry point. PolyJet was also statistically more accurate than DLP (p = 0.007) in regards to 3D deviation at the apex. Within the limitation of this study, the deviations from the experiment showed that PolyJet had the best outcome regarding the 3D deviations at the entry point and at the apex, meanwhile, the DLP printer had the shortest processing time.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Anatomy and Medical Technology · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Master of Science Program in Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Dental Implant Center, Dental Hospital, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Kernen, F., Kramer, J., Wanner, L., Wismeijer, D., Nelson, K., and Flügge, T. (2020). A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery-data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing. BMC Oral Health, 20.10.1186/s12903-020-01208-1 ↗
2. 3D Printing in Dentistry-State of the Art10.2341/18-229-L ↗
3. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025 ↗
4. Oberoi, G., Nitsch, S., Edelmayer, M., Janjić, K., Müller, A.S., and Agis, H. (2018). 3D Printing—Encompassing the Facets of Dentistry. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 6.10.3389/fbioe.2018.00172 ↗
5. Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base10.1111/jopr.13107 ↗
6. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.06.009 ↗
7. Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.012 ↗
8. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.020 ↗
9. Accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling 3D-printed single-tooth surgical template for implant placement: An in vitro comparison with a light cured template10.1016/j.jcms.2019.03.019 ↗
10. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: Preliminary results10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.503 ↗
11. Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: A single-blind clinical comparative study10.11607/jomi.2691 ↗
12. Guided surgery: Accuracy and efficacy10.1111/prd.12046 ↗
13. Is it possible to improve the accuracy of implants inserted with a stereolithographic surgical guide by reducing the tolerance between mechanical components?10.1016/j.ijom.2013.01.011 ↗
14. Zhou, W., Liu, Z., Song, L., Kuo, C.-L., and Shafer, D. (2017). Clinical Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract., 18.10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.07.007 ↗
15. Is Digital Guided Implant Surgery Accurate and Reliable?10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.006 ↗
16. The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery10.1111/cid.12705 ↗
17. How Accurate Are Implant Surgical Guides Produced with Desktop Stereolithographic 3-Dimentional Printers?10.1016/j.joms.2017.08.001 ↗
18. Herschdorfer, L., Negreiros, W.M., Gallucci, G.O., and Hamilton, A. (2020). Comparison of the accuracy of implants placed with CAD-CAM surgical templates manufactured with various 3D printers: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent.10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.017 ↗
19. Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies10.11607/jomi.5556 ↗
20. Potential Deviation Factors Affecting Stereolithographic Surgical Guides: A Systematic Review10.1097/ID.0000000000000853 ↗
21. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.13346 ↗
22. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x ↗
23. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: Clinical data from 94 implants10.1902/jop.2008.080059 ↗
24. A preliminary report of patients treated with early loaded implants using computerized tomography-guided surgical stents: Flapless versus conventional flapped surgery10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01772.x ↗
25. Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: A critical review
26. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: A systematic review10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2 ↗
27. A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients10.1111/jcpe.12897 ↗
28. The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study10.1111/clr.13514 ↗
29. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
30. A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template10.1111/jcpe.12231 ↗
31. Immediately Loaded Implants in Rehabilitation of the Maxilla: A Two-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Guided Surgery versus Standard Procedure10.1111/cid.12459 ↗
32. In Vivo Tooth-Supported Implant Surgical Guides Fabricated With Desktop Stereolithographic Printers: Fully Guided Surgery Is More Accurate Than Partially Guided Surgery10.1016/j.joms.2018.02.010 ↗
33. Influence of implant macrodesign and insertion connection technology on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery10.1111/cid.12836 ↗
34. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: A comparison of operator experience10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.004 ↗
35. Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery10.1111/clr.13520 ↗
36. Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques10.1111/jopr.13161 ↗
37. Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting10.1111/jopr.13138 ↗