Sueli Mukai1, Eduardo Mukai2, José Arnaldo Santos-Junior1, Jamil Awad Shibli1, Marcelo Faveri1, Gabriela Giro3. 1. Dental Research Division, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Guarulhos University, Praça Tereza Cristina 289, Guarulhos, SP, 07030-070, Brazil. 2. Private Practice, Av. Conselheiro Carrão, 1530, São Paulo, SP, 03402-001, Brazil. 3. Dental Research Division, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Guarulhos University, Praça Tereza Cristina 289, Guarulhos, SP, 07030-070, Brazil. gabi.giro@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology advancement has rising in the past decade and brought several innovations and improvements. In dentistry, this advances provided more comfortable and quick procedures to both the patient and the dental surgeon, generating less predictability in the final result. Several techniques has been developed for the preparation of surgical guides aiming at the optimization of surgical procedures. The present study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility and precision of two types of surgical guides obtained using 3D printing and milling methods. METHODS: A virtual model was developed that allowed the virtual design of milled (n = 10) or 3D printed (n = 10) surgical guides. The surgical guides were digitally oriented and overlapped on the virtual model. For the milling guides, the Sirona Dentsply system was used, while the 3D printing guides were produced using EnvisionTEC's Perfactory P4K Life Series 3D printer and E-Guide Tint, a biocompatible Class I certified material. The precision and trueness of each group during overlap were assessed. The data were analyzed with GraphPad software using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality and Student's t test for the variables. RESULTS: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed a normal distribution of the data. Comparisons between groups showed no statistically significant differences for trueness (p = 0.529) or precision (p = 0.3021). However, a significant difference was observed in the standard deviation of mismatches regarding accuracy from the master model (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, surgical guides fabricated by milling or prototyped processes achieved similar results.
BACKGROUND: Technology advancement has rising in the past decade and brought several innovations and improvements. In dentistry, this advances provided more comfortable and quick procedures to both the patient and the dental surgeon, generating less predictability in the final result. Several techniques has been developed for the preparation of surgical guides aiming at the optimization of surgical procedures. The present study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility and precision of two types of surgical guides obtained using 3D printing and milling methods. METHODS: A virtual model was developed that allowed the virtual design of milled (n = 10) or 3D printed (n = 10) surgical guides. The surgical guides were digitally oriented and overlapped on the virtual model. For the milling guides, the Sirona Dentsply system was used, while the 3D printing guides were produced using EnvisionTEC's Perfactory P4K Life Series 3D printer and E-Guide Tint, a biocompatible Class I certified material. The precision and trueness of each group during overlap were assessed. The data were analyzed with GraphPad software using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality and Student's t test for the variables. RESULTS: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed a normal distribution of the data. Comparisons between groups showed no statistically significant differences for trueness (p = 0.529) or precision (p = 0.3021). However, a significant difference was observed in the standard deviation of mismatches regarding accuracy from the master model (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, surgical guides fabricated by milling or prototyped processes achieved similar results.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D printing surgical guide; CAD/CAM; Milling surgical guide; Surgical guide; Virtual guided surgery
Authors: Caitlyn K Bell; Erik F Sahl; Yoon Jeong Kim; Dwight D Rice Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Nathaniel E Farley; Kelly Kennedy; Edwin A McGlumphy; Nancy L Clelland Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.804