Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Dalal, Nishchal; Ammoun, Rami; Abdulmajeed, Aous A.; Deeb, George R.; Bencharit, Sompop

doi:10.1111/jopr.13138

Cited by 38 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the difference between the guide design method of the pilot guide and the fully guide, the 3d printing method used, and the post-processing method may also influence the difference. Dalal et al reported that deviation of 0.04~0.26 mm and~2 • can be shown depending on the printing layer thickness and angulation setting value [18]. In this study, the guide of pilot-guided surgery was designed by the operator, and the guide of fully guided surgery was designed by the manufacturer and confirmed the planned data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery

Kim¹,

Kim²,

Moon³

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to compare the implant placement deviations and evaluate the 1-year post-implant placement bone loss of pilot and fully guided implant placement protocols. In the first method, the pilot drill is used for guide surgery, and the following procedure is a method for performing implant surgery in a non-guided protocol. The second method is to perform fully guided surgery. A total of 74 implants in 20 patients were included. Postoperative CT scans were used to compare the implant placement deviations with the preoperative plan. In addition, bone loss was compared one year after surgery. In shoulder area, the implant deviations from the planned positions for dx(mesio-distal), dy(bucco-lingual), dz(vertical) dimensions, mean deviations with pilot-guided protocol (n = 31) were 0.50 ± 0.42 mm, 0.61 ± 0.55 mm, 0.87 ± 0.71 mm, and 1.33 ± 0.75 mm, respectively. The corresponding deviations for fully guided protocol (n = 41) were 0.50 ± 0.52 mm, 0.29 ± 0.27 mm, 0.56 ± 0.51 mm, and 0.96 ± 0.57 mm. In apical area, the corresponding deviations for pilot-guided protocol were 0.75 ± 0.72 mm, 0.61 ± 0.46 mm, 0.98 ± 0.76 mm, and 1.54 ± 0.87 mm. Deviations for fully guided protocol were 0.91 ± 0.90 mm, 0.44 ± 0.39 mm, 0.54 ± 0.51 mm, and 1.38 ± 0.76 mm, respectively. Angular deviations were 3.33 ± 3.23° with pilot-guided protocol and 3.90 ± 1.85° with fully guided protocol. The average bone loss after 1 year was 0.50 + 0.29 mm and 0.50 ± 0.24 mm, respectively. In the shoulder area, dy(bucco-lingual) of horizontal deviations, vertical deviations, and mean value of the deviations showed a statistically significant difference between fully guided and pilot-guided (p = 0.005, p = 0.033, and p = 0.023, respectively). In the apical area, vertical deviations showed a statistically significant difference. However, the mean value of the deviations did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.347). There was no statistically significant difference in angular deviations (p = 0.59).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery

Kim¹,

Kim²,

Moon³

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The STL file of the guides from the Blue Sky Bio and 3D Slicer/Blender were printed, 10 guides for each group using Form 2 (Formlabs, Somerville, MA) SLA printer. Using printing parameters similar to previous reports, 1,3,4,18,19 the guides were oriented at ∼45°with appropriate generated supports. The guides were printed using Dental SG resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty identical dental casts generated from the intraoral scan were printed using Dental Model resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA). A similar post-processing method to previous studies, 1,3,4,18,19 was used, including rinsing twice with 96% isopropanol for 5 minutes each, then placing the guides/casts in ultrasonic with 96% isopropanol for additional 5 minutes. The guides and casts were allowed to air dry and then subjected to UV-A (315-400 nm) and UV-B (400-550) light in the polymerization chamber (LC-3D Print Box, NextDent, Soesterberg, The Netherlands) for 60 minutes at 60°C.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Talmazov

Bencharit

Waldrop

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement position using two different dental implant planning software. Materials and Methods A set of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files from a cone beam computed tomography of a patient missing maxillary right first premolar was used. Implant planning was done using two open‐source programs: A nondental 3D Slicer/Blender (3DSB) software and a commercial dental implant treatment planning program: Blue Sky Plan 4 (BSP4). An intraoral scan of the same patient was used to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the maxillary arch and later printed into 20 identical casts. Ten surgical guides were printed for each group as well. A dental implant (3.8 mm × 12 mm, Biohorizons) was placed into each cast using fully guided surgical protocol. The horizontal displacements at the implant cervical platform and at the implant apex as well as the angulation displacements were measured using digital scanning of the implant scan bodies and were analyzed using a 3D compare software. Statistical analyses were conducted (⍺ = 0.05) using t‐test and F‐test to examine differences in trueness and precision, respectively. Results The average horizontal deviations for the platform and the apex, respectively, were 0.33 ± 0.12 mm and 0.76 ± 0.30 mm for 3DSB and 0.44 ± 0.21 mm and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm for BSP4. The average angulation deviations for 3DSB and BSB4 were 2.34 ± 0.93° and 3.07 ± 1.57°, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the means (t‐test) of the platform, apex, and angulation deviations (p = 0.16, p = 0.19, and p = 0.18, respectively). There were statistical differences in the variances (F test) of the platform (p = 0.043) and angulation (p = 0.049) deviations but not the apex (p = 0.059) deviations. Conclusions The combination of nondental open‐source software, 3D Slicer/Blender can be used to plan implant guided surgery with an accuracy similar to commercial dental software with slightly higher precision. Open‐source nondental software can be considered as an alternative in dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery.

show abstract

“…Then the guide was rinsed again with 96% isopropanol with a wash bottle for about 30 second (sec) and then placed in a plastic container with 96% isopropanol in the ultrasonic bath for an additional 5 minutes. This method was slightly modified from previous studies 3,8 . Then the guide was air‐dried using compressed air and then placed in a polymerization chamber (LC‐3D Print Box, NextDent) for 60 minutes subjected to UV‐A (315‐400 nm) and UV‐B (400‐550 nm) and heat (60°C).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Static implant guided surgery is currently the most accurate method to place an implant 4 . Recently introduction of in‐office stereolithographic printers allowed clinicians to produce implant surgical guides with lower cost, with the promise of higher accuracy than free‐hand or conventional implant guide methods 5‐9 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ammoun

Dalal

Abdulmajeed

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting

Cited by 38 publications

References 27 publications

A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery

A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About