The present article describes a digital workflow for planning an esthetic treatment by using a facial and intraoral scanner, the dental and open-source software design of a facially generated diagnostic waxing, and additive manufactured (AM) clear silicone indices. A virtual design was created to fabricate a unique 3-piece AM index composed of flexible, clear silicone at the labial and lingual aspects and a rigid clear custom tray. The 3-piece AM clear indexes provided advantages compared with conventional procedures, including accurate reproduction of the digital diagnostic waxing, control of index thickness, various insertion paths of the silicone indices, flexibility of the indices, and online storage of the designs.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies can be used to fabricate definitive casts for implant-supported restorations. However, information regarding the accuracy of the implant replica position on the polymeric AM cast generated with different scan bodies and digital implant replica systems is lacking. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare with a conventional stone cast the linear and angular discrepancies of the implant analog positions in a polymeric AM cast obtained from 3 different scan body and digital implant replica systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partially edentulous maxillary typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant replica RP Branemark system; Nobel Biocare) was prepared. Two duplicating methods were evaluated: conventional (CNV group) and AM (AM group) procedures. For the CNV group, polyvinyl siloxane open-tray implant impressions (CNV) were made at room temperature (23°C). The AM group was further divided into the subgroups Elos Medtech, Nt-Trading, and Dynamic Abutment. For the Elos Medtech subgroup, the corresponding scan bodies were placed on each implant, and the typodont was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (E3 scanner; 3Shape A/S). The same procedure was repeated with the remaining subgroups. All the AM polymer casts were fabricated at once by using the same 3D printer (Eden 500V; Stratasys). Ten specimens of each group were obtained (n=10). A coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the position of each implant replica, and distortion was calculated for each system at the x-, y-, and z-axes and 3D distortion measurement (3D=x 2 +y 2 +z 2 ). The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests (=.05) were used for the analysis. RESULTS The CNV group presented significantly higher linear discrepancy than the Dynamic Abutment group on the x-and y-axes. On the z-axis, however, the CNV group showed significantly lower linear discrepancy than the Nt-Trading and Dynamic Abutment groups. The 3D linear discrepancy was 12 ±12 m for the CNV group, 4 ±100 m for the Elos Medtech group, 8 ±52 m for the Nt-Trading group, and 5 ±19 m for the Dynamic Abutment. The CNV group demonstrated a significantly higher angle than the Nt-Trading group but a significantly smaller angle than the Elos Medtech and Dynamic Abutment groups. CONCLUSIONS The AM groups had lower 3D discrepancies than the CNV group. The Dynamic Abutment group had significantly better accuracy for the mesiodistal and buccolingual implant replica positions than the CNV group, but the conventional procedures had significantly better results for the apicocoronal implant replica position. Scan body and digital implant replica design systems only influenced the accuracy of the angular implant replica position on the AM casts.

No abstract

PurposeTo analyze the perceptions of laypersons, dental students, and dentists regarding disparities of the maxillary dental midline and the occlusal plane (OP) when analyzing their own 2D or 3D clinical simulation.Material and Methods20 participants per group volunteered (N = 60). Intraoral and facial scans, and a photograph were obtained from each participant. Two simulation groups were created: 2D and 3D groups, which were subdivided into two subgroups. In the first subgroup, the OP was modified by 1‐degree increments without changing the maxillary midline. In the second subgroup, the OP was modified by the same increments, but the maxillary midline was altered to match the OP inclination. Participants were asked to rate the simulations on a 1‐to‐6 scale and a question survey. Ordinal logistic regression (OR) was used to analyze the ratings.ResultsTilt of the OP had the strongest negative effect on the ratings which was further amplified by the dental midline inclination (OR = 0.122). Midline modification alone did not affect the ratings (OR = 0.744). 3D simulations had a stronger positive effect on the ratings compared to 2D simulations. For dental students, the positive rating effect of 3D simulations was similar to dentists. For laypersons, the positive rating effect of 3D simulations compared to the 2D simulations decreased relative to dentists. The survey revealed that 45% of the dentists, 80% of the students, and 50% of the laypersons preferred the 3D simulation.ConclusionsThe type of dimensional representation affected the esthetic perception of all participants. 3D simulations obtained higher esthetic ratings for the same esthetic discrepancy than 2D simulations. However, all participants’ ratings decreased with increased tilt of the OP and were further decreased with the inclination of the dental midline.