Statement of problem
Different 3D printers are available for guided implant surgery, but studies that evaluate their source of errors and their cost-effectiveness are lacking.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of different 3-dimensional (3D) printed surgical templates made using different additive manufacturing technologies and to evaluate the effect of implant location on the accuracy of fully guided implant placement.
Material and methods
Fifty partially edentulous maxillary typodonts with edentulous sites in the right second premolar (SP), right lateral incisor (LI), left central incisor (CI), and left first molar (FM) locations were scanned and printed from the standard tessellation language (STL) datasets. The study compared 5 groups for the fabrication of implant surgical templates: Varseo S–Bego (Bego), Polyjet–Stratasys (Poly), Low Force Stereolithography–FormLabs (LFS), P30+–Straumann (P30), and M2–Carbon (M2). After fully guided implant placement, the typodont was scanned, and the 3D implant positions were compared with the master model by superimposing the STL files. Descriptive statistics were calculated for groups and subgroups, and comparisons among the groups and subgroups were conducted via 2-way mixed analysis of variance, Tukey honest significant difference, and post hoc Bonferroni tests (α=.05).
The results were site specific and not consistent within each group. For angle deviation, the within-group analysis for P30 demonstrated significantly lower values for implants positioned at site SP (1.4 ±0.8 degrees) than for sites LI (2.3 ±0.7 degrees; P=.001) and CI (2.3 ±0.8 degrees; P=.007). For 3D offset at base for implant CI, LFS was significantly higher than Bego (P=.002), Poly (P=.035), or M2 (P=.001); P30 was also significantly higher than Bego (P=.014) and M2 (P=.006). LFS had a significantly higher 3D offset at the tip than Bego (P=.001) and M2 (P=.022) for implant CI.
The choice of 3D printer seemed to influence fully guided implant surgery in terms of the final implant position compared with initial implant planning. However, although statistically significant differences were present across groups, all additive manufacturing technologies were within clinically acceptable values.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Implant survival in the edentulous jaw-30 years of experience. Part I: a retro-prospective multivariate regression analysis of overall implant failure in 4,585 consecutively treated arches.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 425-435
- 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: 839-851
- Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols.Int J Implant Dent. 2020; 6: 10
- Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 43-61
- A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 102-110
- Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1243-1250
- Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - A prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1113-1118
- Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-283
- Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24: 92-109
- Accuracy of guided implant surgery in 25 edentulous arches: a laboratory observational study.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 718-724
- The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 416-435
- Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 69-76
- Options in virtual 3D, optical-impression-based planning of dental implants.Int J Comput Dent. 2014; 17: 101-113
- Registration accuracy in the integration of laser-scanned dental images into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography images.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140: 585-591
- M2 ITI consensus report: digital technologies.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 436-442
- Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 124-135
- Accuracy of implants placed with surgical guides: thermoplastic versus 3D printed.Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018; 38: 113-119
- Accuracy of a simplified 3D-printed implant surgical guide.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 195-201.e2
- Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: a critical review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016; 9: S135-S153
- Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 1067-1075
- Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: a systematic review.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 359-373
- Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 416-423
- The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 617-624
- Accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 309-314
- Accuracy of surgical guides from 2 different desktop 3D printers for computed tomography-guided surgery.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 498-503
- In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: a clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 256-263
- Accuracy and precision of 3D-printed implant surgical guides with different implant systems: an in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 821-828
- DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ. 2018; 363k3750
- Accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling 3D-printed single-tooth surgical template for implant placement: an in vitro comparison with a light cured template.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47: 1216-1221
- Comparison of the accuracy of implants placed with CAD-CAM surgical templates manufactured with various 3D printers: an in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 905-910
- Salkind N.J. Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA2010: 1376
- Consumer vs. High-end 3D printers for guided implant surgery-An in vitro accuracy assessment study of different 3D printing technologies.J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 4894
Published online: April 28, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.