Accuracy and precision of 3D-printed implant surgical guides with different implant systems: An in vitro study

Yeung, Matthew; Abdulmajeed, Aous A.; Carrico, Caroline K.; Deeb, George R.; Bencharit, Sompop

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.027

Cited by 92 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, this study focused only in the guide intaglio representation of the original design without considering different fitting in humans and the placement of guide sleeve as well as implant placement. Fitting and adjustment in the printed or conventional dental cast or in a patient's mouth may have a large effect on guide's adaptation and tube deviations . Additionally, placement of the guide sleeve into the surgical guide can introduce another factor influencing the implant deviation due to the surface roughness of the sleeve/resin interface and the offset setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Dalal

Ammoun

Abdulmajeed

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To measure overall intaglio dimensional and tube deviations of implant guides printed at 50 and 100 µm layer thickness at 0°, 45°, and 90°angulation using a stereolithographic (SLA) printer. Materials and Methods: A surgical implant guide design from a subject missing a maxillary right central incisor, used as the original standard tessellation language (STL) were stereolithographically fabricated at each thickness and angulation, 50 and 100 µm layer thickness at 0°, 45°, and 90°angulation (n = 10 each group). The guide was then scanned using cone beam computed tomography. The digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) scanned files were then converted to an STL format. The overall dimensional deviations of the intaglio surface and the positioning of the implant guide tube were then superimposed onto the original designed STL file using best-fitting alignment. A t-test and an F-test as well as ANOVA followed by a post hoc t-test were used to determine statistical significant differences (α = 0.05) for the intaglio surface and guide tube deviation, respectively. Results: The overall intaglio surface discrepancies (µm) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90°w ere 55.07 ± 1.36, 52.39 ± 2.09, and 61.02 ± 15.96 for 50 µm layer; and 98.38 ± 10.55, 84.47 ± 10.61, and 90.26 ± 5 for 100 µm layer with statistically significant differences for both t-test and F-test, p < 0.001. The maximal guide tube linear deviations (µm) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90°were 10.78 ± 3.84, 8.16 ± 3.68, and 12.57 ± 5.39 for 50 µm layer (ANOVA, p = 0.096); and 10.95 ± 5.23, 16.79 ± 4.97, and 22.63 ± 2.81 for 100 µm layer (ANOVA, p < 0.001). The maximal guide tube angular deviations (°) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90°were 1.29 ± 0.30, 0.64 ± 0.13, and 0.56 ± 0.21 for 50 µm layer (ANOVA, p < 0.001); and 1.57 ± 0.29, 0.86 ± 0.14, and 1.02 ± 0.31 for 100 µm layer (ANOVA, p = 0.034). There was a statistical difference in the deviations between 50 and 100 µm layer printing in all printed angulations except at 0°(t-test, p = 0.05, p = 0.03, and p = 0.001 for 0°, 45°, and 90°) and linear deviations (t-test, p < 0.001, p = 0.009, and p = 0.001 for 0°, 45°, and 90°). Conclusion: Printing at 50 µm layer reduces dimensional intaglio deviations in general and reduces tube angular deviations with different angulations of printing. However, the deviations were only ß60 to 100 µm for the intaglio dimension deviations; and ß0.04 to 0.26 mm and ß0.25°to ß2°for tube deviations.Guided implant surgery promises accurate placement of dental implants to ensure optimal esthetics and function of definitive restorations and longevity of osseointegrated implants. 1,2 Advancements in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and computer-aided implant treatment planning simplify implant treatment planning and implant guide design. 3,4 Recent introduction of desktop 3D printing allows clinicians to fabricate implant surgical guides for guided implant surgery in office.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Dalal

Ammoun

Abdulmajeed

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The STL file of the guides from the Blue Sky Bio and 3D Slicer/Blender were printed, 10 guides for each group using Form 2 (Formlabs, Somerville, MA) SLA printer. Using printing parameters similar to previous reports, 1,3,4,18,19 the guides were oriented at ∼45°with appropriate generated supports. The guides were printed using Dental SG resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty identical dental casts generated from the intraoral scan were printed using Dental Model resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA). A similar post-processing method to previous studies, 1,3,4,18,19 was used, including rinsing twice with 96% isopropanol for 5 minutes each, then placing the guides/casts in ultrasonic with 96% isopropanol for additional 5 minutes. The guides and casts were allowed to air dry and then subjected to UV-A (315-400 nm) and UV-B (400-550) light in the polymerization chamber (LC-3D Print Box, NextDent, Soesterberg, The Netherlands) for 60 minutes at 60°C.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the in vitro implant placement, the fully guided protocol per manufacturer's recommendation was employed similar to a previous study. 18 The dental implant fixture 3.8 mm × 12 mm (Tapered Internal, BioHorizons) was placed by an experienced operator. After the implant placement, digital impressions were made using implant scan bodies and intraoral scanner Planmeca Emerald (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Talmazov

Bencharit

Waldrop

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement position using two different dental implant planning software. Materials and Methods A set of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files from a cone beam computed tomography of a patient missing maxillary right first premolar was used. Implant planning was done using two open‐source programs: A nondental 3D Slicer/Blender (3DSB) software and a commercial dental implant treatment planning program: Blue Sky Plan 4 (BSP4). An intraoral scan of the same patient was used to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the maxillary arch and later printed into 20 identical casts. Ten surgical guides were printed for each group as well. A dental implant (3.8 mm × 12 mm, Biohorizons) was placed into each cast using fully guided surgical protocol. The horizontal displacements at the implant cervical platform and at the implant apex as well as the angulation displacements were measured using digital scanning of the implant scan bodies and were analyzed using a 3D compare software. Statistical analyses were conducted (⍺ = 0.05) using t‐test and F‐test to examine differences in trueness and precision, respectively. Results The average horizontal deviations for the platform and the apex, respectively, were 0.33 ± 0.12 mm and 0.76 ± 0.30 mm for 3DSB and 0.44 ± 0.21 mm and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm for BSP4. The average angulation deviations for 3DSB and BSB4 were 2.34 ± 0.93° and 3.07 ± 1.57°, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the means (t‐test) of the platform, apex, and angulation deviations (p = 0.16, p = 0.19, and p = 0.18, respectively). There were statistical differences in the variances (F test) of the platform (p = 0.043) and angulation (p = 0.049) deviations but not the apex (p = 0.059) deviations. Conclusions The combination of nondental open‐source software, 3D Slicer/Blender can be used to plan implant guided surgery with an accuracy similar to commercial dental software with slightly higher precision. Open‐source nondental software can be considered as an alternative in dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery.

show abstract

“…The intraoral scanner has emerged as a chairside concept for fixed prosthetic treatment [19][20][21][22]. However, it is now being applied to many other treatment procedures, including removable prosthetic treatments, orthodontic treatments, and implant planning procedures [10,[23][24][25]. The ability to scan the teeth and soft tissues and perform three-dimensional (3D) modeling in a faster and more convenient manner than conventional workflows indicates a potential for wider applications [23][24][25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Lee

2020

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental three-dimensional (3D) scanners according to the types of teeth. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained by scanning the reference typodont model using a high-precision industrial scanner (Solutionix C500, MEDIT). In addition, a CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using seven types of dental 3D scanners (desktop scanners (E1 and DOF Freedom HD) and intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500)). The 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X, 3DSystems) was used to segment the CRM according to the types of teeth and to superimpose the CTM based on the segmented teeth. The 3D accuracy of the scanner was then analyzed according to the types of teeth. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences according to the types of teeth in statistical analysis, and the Tukey HSD test was used for post hoc testing (α = 0.05). Both desktop and intraoral scanners showed significant differences in accuracy according to the types of teeth (P < 0.001), and the accuracy of intraoral scanners tended to get worse from anterior to posterior. Therefore, when scanning a complete arch using an intraoral scanner, the clinician should consider the tendency for the accuracy to decrease from anterior to posterior.

show abstract

Accuracy and precision of 3D-printed implant surgical guides with different implant systems: An in vitro study

Cited by 92 publications

References 19 publications

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About