Effects of two Postprocessing Methods onto Surface Dimension of in‐Office Fabricated Stereolithographic Implant Surgical Guides

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effects of two postprocessing methods in terms of the overall, intaglio, and cameo surface dimensions of in‐office stereolithographic fabricated implant surgical guides. Materials and methods Twenty identical implant surgical guides were fabricated using a stereolithographic printer. Ten guides were postprocessed using an automated method. The other ten guides were postprocessed using a series of hand washing in combination with ultrasonics. Each guide was then scanned using cone‐beam computed tomography to produce a set of digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files which were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. The STL file was then superimposed onto the original STL design file using the best fit alignment. The average positive and negative surface discrepancy differences in terms of means and variances were analyzed using t‐test (α = 0.05). Results For the alternative group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 77.38 ± 10.68 µm and –67.74 ± 6.55 µm; 78.83 ± 8.65 µm and –68.16 ± 5.26 µm; and 70.5 ± 8.48 µm –64.84 ± 5.55 µm, respectively. For the automated group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 51.88 ± 4.38 µm and –170.7 ± 11.49 µm; 64.3 ± 4.44 µm and –89.45 ± 6.25 µm; and 83.59 ± 4.81 µm and –144.26 ± 13.19 µm, respectively. There was a statistical difference between the means of the two methods for the overall, intaglio, and cameo positive and negative discrepancies (p < 0.001). Conclusions For a single implant tooth‐supported implant guide, using hand washing with ultrasonics appeared to be consistently better than the automated method. The manual method presented with more positive discrepancies, while the automated method presented with more negative discrepancies.

Influence of Metal Guide Sleeves on the Accuracy and Precision of Dental Implant Placement Using Guided Implant Surgery: An In Vitro Study

“…The stereolithographic production of surgical guides in office was first outlined by Whitley and Bencharit 1,2 . The protocol streamlines and simplifies the design, print, and post‐processing using commercial software 15,17 . Talmazov et al 18 demonstrated that a static guided surgery can be done entirely using open‐source software to create implant guides with similar accuracy to previous studies using commercial software.…”

Additively Manufactured Surgical Implant Guides: A Review

“…Post‐processing has also been investigated with respect to its effect on s‐CAIS guides. Ammoun et al 88 looked at the impact on surface dimensions of automated post‐processing versus hand‐washing in combination with ultrasonic baths. For a single implant, tooth‐supported s‐CAIS guide, hand washing and ultrasonics gave a consistently better result than the automated method.…”

Accuracy Evaluation of Additively and Subtractively Fabricated Palatal Plate Orthodontic Appliances for Newborns and Infants–An In Vitro Study

“…During washing, the objective is to remove unreacted resin from the part’s surface. A US bath, as used for the DLP sample, is known to be more effective than Formwash which is stirring the cleaning solution around the part [ 36 ]. If remains of unreacted resin are present on the sample, this will be then post-cured, which could explain the higher positive deviation observed in the alveolar ridge for SLA samples in comparison to DLP ( Figure 9 ).…”