Yao Sun1, Qian Ding1, Lin Tang1, Lei Zhang2, Yuchun Sun3, Qiufei Xie1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 South Street ZhongGuanCun, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 South Street ZhongGuanCun, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China. Electronic address: drzhanglei@yeah.net. 3. Center of Digital Dentistry, Faculty of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Digital Dentistry of Ministry of Health, 22 South Street ZhongGuanCun, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China. Electronic address: polarshining@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed surgical template with that of a light-cured template for implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty standard mandibular resin models with missing teeth 36 and 46 were selected. Surgical templates were fabricated using a chairside FDM 3D-printer (test group) or a light-curing 3D printer (control group) (n = 20/group). Forty implants were placed by a clinician blinded to group allocation. The angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip between preoperative design and postoperative implant position were recorded. RESULTS: The mean angular (test vs control groups: 3.22° ± 1.55° vs 2.74° ± 1.24°, p = 0.343) and 3D deviations at the implant base (test vs control groups: 0.41 ± 0.13 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.11 mm, p = 0.127) and tip (test vs control groups: 0.91 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.75 ± 0.28 mm, p = 0.150) were similar. The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip also did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For single tooth gap indications, implant placement with an FDM 3D-printed surgical template was as accurate as that with a light-cured template, and more efficient.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed surgical template with that of a light-cured template for implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty standard mandibular resin models with missing teeth 36 and 46 were selected. Surgical templates were fabricated using a chairside FDM 3D-printer (test group) or a light-curing 3D printer (control group) (n = 20/group). Forty implants were placed by a clinician blinded to group allocation. The angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip between preoperative design and postoperative implant position were recorded. RESULTS: The mean angular (test vs control groups: 3.22° ± 1.55° vs 2.74° ± 1.24°, p = 0.343) and 3D deviations at the implant base (test vs control groups: 0.41 ± 0.13 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.11 mm, p = 0.127) and tip (test vs control groups: 0.91 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.75 ± 0.28 mm, p = 0.150) were similar. The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip also did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For single tooth gap indications, implant placement with an FDM 3D-printed surgical template was as accurate as that with a light-cured template, and more efficient.
Authors: Lukas Postl; Thomas Mücke; Stefan Hunger; Sabina Noreen Wuersching; Svenia Holberg; Oliver Bissinger; Rainer Burgkart; Michael Malek; Stefan Krennmair Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Lukas Postl; Thomas Mücke; Stefan Hunger; Oliver Bissinger; Michael Malek; Svenia Holberg; Rainer Burgkart; Stefan Krennmair Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.175