Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
3D printers
3D-printed casts
accuracy of fit
digital dentistry
digital impressions
digital workflow
Journal
Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]
ISSN: 1708-8240
Titre abrégé: J Esthet Restor Dent
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101096515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
revised:
22
07
2022
received:
22
02
2022
accepted:
25
07
2022
entrez:
23
11
2022
pubmed:
24
11
2022
medline:
25
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare in vitro the accuracy of fit of a reference prosthesis seated on three-dimensional (3D) printed casts generated from digital implant scans vs stone casts made by conventional implant impressions. A partially edentulous maxillary master cast with two internal connection implants was generated, while a reference implant-supported prosthesis was fabricated. Conventional splinted open-tray impressions were taken to create stone casts (n = 10) (control group). A digital scan was taken of the master cast using a white light intraoral optical scanner (IOS) (TRIOS, 3Shape), and a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file was obtained. Four 3D printers were used to print the casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer): Straumann® P30+, Varseo S, Form 3b+and M2 Carbon. Accuracy of fit of the reference prosthesis on all control and test casts was assessed using the screw resistance test and radiographic test. Additionally, all casts were digitized using the same IOS, and the STL files were superimposed to the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the 3D accuracy with inspection Geomagic Control software using the root-mean-square (RMS) error. The reference prosthesis presented with clinically acceptable fit on all casts. The highest median RMS error was found in the stone cast group (94.6 μm) while the lowest median was in the M2 Carbon group (46.9 μm). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p < 0.001). For post hoc comparisons, Dunn's test with the Holm-Bonferroni correction resulted in a statistically significant difference in four tests, with M2 Carbon exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p < 0.001) and P30+ (p < 0.001) groups, Form 3b exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p < 0.001) group, and Varseo S exhibiting lower RMS error than the stone cast (p = 0.006) group. Using the screw-resistance test and radiographic assessment, the reference prosthesis fit presented with clinically acceptable accuracy of fit on all casts. Printed casts from 3 different printers demonstrated statistically significant lower 3D deviations than stone casts generated using a conventional implant impression for the present partially edentulous scenario with two implants, but this did not affect prosthesis fit. Even though there were 3D deviations between the master cast and all control and test casts generated from conventional impressions and digital scans respectively, the reference prosthesis presented with accurate fit on all casts. This indicates that there is a threshold for clinically acceptable accuracy of fit and that 3D-printed casts may be used as definitive master casts to fabricate implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for the partially edentulous anterior maxilla.
Substances chimiques
Dental Impression Materials
0
Dental Implants
0
Carbon
7440-44-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1238-1246Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennani V, Waddell N, Swain M. Fit of screw-retained fixed implant frameworks fabricated by different methods: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24(3):207-220.
Papaspyridakos P, Lal K, White GS, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(6):1267-1272.
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen CJ, Kotina E, Natto Z, Chochlidakis K. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(8):660-678.
Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Gaviria AS, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:121-138.
Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(5):620-625.
Papaspyridakos P, Benic GI, Hogsett VL, White GS, Lal K, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(6):676-681.
Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, Pow EHN. Implant framework misfit: a systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(2):244-258.
Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(3):506-515.
Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. 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(8):835-842.
Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(1):149-157.
Hariharan R, Shankar C, Rajan M, Baig MR, Azhagarasan NS. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials. Int J Oral Max Impl. 2010;25(1):38-144.
Gallucci GO, Papaspyridakos P, Ashy LM, Kim GE, Brady NJ, Weber HP. Clinical accuracy outcomes of closed-tray and open-tray implant impression techniques for partially edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24(5):469-472.
Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(9):1289-1296.
Papaspyridakos P, DeSouza A, Bathija A, Kang K, Chochlidakis K. Complete digital workflow for mandibular full-arch implant rehabilitation in 3 appointments. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(6):548-552.
Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(2):72-84.
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(5):589-593.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):184-190.
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-1367.
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-472.
Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):574-579.
Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(2):182-188.
Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):146-158.
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(6):760-767.
Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry-state of the art. Oper Dent. 2020;45(1):30-40.
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(2):124-128.
Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(11):1133-1140.
Banjar A, Chen YW, Kostagianni A, et al. Accuracy of 3D printed implant casts versus stone casts: a comparative study in the anterior maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:783-788.