Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla.
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
accepted:
14
01
2021
pubmed:
22
1
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
21
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To conduct an in vitro comparison of the amount of three-dimensional (3D) deviation of 3D printed casts generated from digital implant impressions with an intraoral scanner (IOS) to stone casts made of conventional impressions. A maxillary master cast with partially edentulous anterior area was fabricated with two internal connection implants (Regular CrossFit, Straumann). Stone casts (n = 10) that served as a control were fabricated with the splinted open-tray impression technique. Twenty digital impressions were made using a white light IOS (TRIOS, 3shape) and the Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files obtained were saved. Based on the STL files, a digital light processing (DLP) and a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer (Varseo S and Form 2) were used to print casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer). The master cast and all casts generated from each group were digitized using the same IOS. The STL files obtained were superimposed on the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the amount of 3D deviation with inspection software using the root mean square value (RMS). The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction (for post hoc comparisons) were used for statistical analyses. The Varseo S group had the lowest median RMS value [77.5 µm (IQR = 91.4-135.4)], followed closely by the Conventional group [77.7 µm (IQR = 61.5-93.4)]. The Form 2 had the highest mean value [98.8 µm (IQR = 57.6-87.9)]. The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.018). Post hoc testing revealed a significant difference between Varseo S and Form 2 (p = 0.009). The casts generated from the Varseo S 3D printer had better 3D accuracy than did those from the Form 2 3D printer. Both the Varseo S group and the conventional stone casts groups had similar 3D accuracy.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
783-788Informations de copyright
© 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Karl M, Taylor TD: Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:369-375
Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P, Guze K, et al: Effect of misfit of cement-retained implant single crowns on crestal bone changes. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:135-137
Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620-625
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, et al: Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29:660-678
Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, et al: Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:102-109
Joda T, Ferrari M, Gallucci GO, et al: Digital technology in fixed implant prosthodontics. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:178-192
Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Gonzalez-Gusmao I, et al: Complete digital workflow in prosthesis prototype fabrication for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: a technique. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:189-192
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, et al: Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-190
Joda T, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. CAD/CAM implant crowns in a digital workflow: five-year follow-up of a prospective clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:169-174
Jiang X, Lin Y, Cui HY, et al: Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: a pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:446-453
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, et al: A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e902-e908
Papaspyridakos P, Chochlidakis K, Kang K, et al: Digital workflow for implant rehabilitation with double full-arch monolithic zirconia prostheses. Journal of Prosthodontics 2020;29:460-465
Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, et al: Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:792-799
Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, et al: In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:313-321
Chew AA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, et al: Three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: effects of different scanners and implant level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:70-80
Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al: Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:574-579
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al: Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-472
Papaspyridakos P, Hirayama H, Chen CJ, et al: Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1099-1105
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, et al: Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1253-1262
Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, et al: Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29:281-286
Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D Printing in Dentistry-State of the Art. Oper Dent 2020;45:30-40
Joerg RS, E Dianne R, Siegbert W. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1289-1296
Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, et al: 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J 2015;219:521-529
Barazanchi A, Chen Li K, Al-Amleh B, et al: Additive technology: update on current materials and applications in dentistry. J Prosthodont 2017;26:156-163
Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-158
Quan H, Zhang T, Xu H, et al: Photo-curing 3D printing technique and its challenges. Bioact Mater 2020;5:110-115
Buda M, Bratos M, Sorensen JA. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:913-918
Revilla-León M, G-M Ó, Pérez López J, et al: Position accuracy of implant analogs on 3D printed polymer versus conventional dental stone casts measured using a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthodont 2018;27:560-567
Bohner L, Hanisch M, De Luca Canto G, et al: Accuracy of casts fabricated by digital and conventional implant impressions. J Oral Implantol 2019;45:94-99
Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al: Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: a comparative in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:835-842
Puebla K, Arcaute K, Quintana R, et al: Effects of environmental conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp J 2012;18:374-388
Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:760-767
Al-Imam H, Gram M, Benetti A, et al: Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:580-585
Jang Y, Sim JY, Park JK, et al: Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:135-142
Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Alshawaf B, et al: Digital workflow: in vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:589-593.
Rungrojwittayakul O, Kan JY, Shiozaki K, et al: Accuracy of 3D printed models created by two technologies of printers with different designs of model base. J Prosthodont 2020;29:124-128
Nestler N, Wesemann C, Spies BC, et al: Dimensional accuracy of extrusion- and photopolymerization-based 3D printers: in vitro study comparing printed casts. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:103-110.
Koretsi V, Kirschbauer C, Proff P, et al: Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:3387-3396
Park ME, Shin SY. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:861.e1-861.e7
Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, et al: Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1133-1140