Accuracy of commercial 3D printers for the fabrication of surgical guides in dental implantology

Francois Rouzé l'Alzit; Romain Cade; Adrien Naveau; Joanna Babilotte; Matteo Meglioli; Sylvain Catros

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103909

Accuracy of commercial 3D printers for the fabrication of surgical guides in dental implantology

J Dent. 2022 Feb:117:103909. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103909. Epub 2021 Nov 28.

Authors

Francois Rouzé l'Alzit¹, Romain Cade², Adrien Naveau³, Joanna Babilotte⁴, Matteo Meglioli⁵, Sylvain Catros⁶

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Condensed Matter Chemistry of Bordeaux, CNRS UMR5026, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Department of prosthodontic dentistry, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. Electronic address: sylvain.catros@u-bordeaux.fr.
² Private practice.
³ Department of prosthodontic dentistry, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Tissue Bioengineering, INSERM U1026, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
⁴ Tissue Bioengineering, INSERM U1026, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
⁵ Center of Dental Medicine, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
⁶ Tissue Bioengineering, INSERM U1026, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Department of Oral Surgery, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

PMID: 34852291
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103909

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of two different surgical guides (small extent = single implant and large extent = full arch) fabricated by five additive manufacturing technologies (SLA=Stereolithography, DLP= Digital Light Processing, FDM=Fused Deposition Modeling, SLS=Selective Laser Sintering, Inkjet).

Methods: Overall, 72 guides (6 per type) were obtained with the different machines (SLA=Form2; DLP=Rapid Shape D40 and Cara Print 4.0; FDM=Raise 3D Pro2; SLS=Prodways P1000; Polyjet®=Stratasys J750). The guides were surface-scanned with an optical dental scanner, and the resulting files were compared with the initial design files using a surface matching software. Root Mean Square (RMS) and standard deviation were calculated, representing respectively trueness and precision. Kruskall-Wallis non-parametric test was used to compare trueness and precision between small-extent and large-extent guides and 3D printer by pairs. The threshold for significance was α=0.05, except for the comparison of printers by pairs where a Bonferroni-corrected level of 0.0033 was used.

Results: Significant differences were observed for trueness and precision between small-extent and large-extent guides, regardless the printer except for DLP (trueness and precision) and SLS (precision). SLA, DLP and Polyjet® technologies showed similar results in terms of trueness and precision for both small-extend and large-extend guides (P>0.05).

Conclusions: The size affected the accuracy of CAD-CAM surgical guides. The different additive manufacturing technologies had a limited impact on the accuracy.

Clinical significance: This study is of clinical interest as it shows that the 3D printing technology (SLA/DLP) has a limited impact on 3D printed surgical guides accuracy. However, the size of the guide can have a significant impact, as small-extent guides were more accurate than large-extent guides.

Keywords: 3d printing; Accuracy; Additive manufacturing technologies; Guided implant surgery; Surgical guide.

MeSH terms

Computer-Aided Design
Models, Dental*
Printing, Three-Dimensional
Software
Stereolithography*