Aim: To test four different measurement methods to evaluate deviations between planned and actual implant positions within a digital workflow applying 3D-printed surgical guides.
Materials and methods: A fully digital workflow was applied to simulate the single implant insertion to replace a maxillary missing central incisor and first molar in 10 gypsum casts (n = 10). Surgical guides (n = 10 per site) were printed by digital light processing for implant bed preparation and implant insertion. Four methods were used to analyze 3D deviations between the planned (target) and achieved implant positions: Methods 1 and 2 used an automated computer program (ACP) to assess deviations between the initial planning file and a file that represented the actual implant position either by the implant bed [ACP_BED] or by the inserted implant [ACP_IMP]. For Method 3, a standard tessellation language dataset representing the actual implant position was used and equipped with reference planes. This dataset was registered with the target planning, allowing manual measurements [MAN_MEAS]. Method 4 used a reverse engineering approach based on 3D high-resolution scans [REVERSE].
Results: Mean 3D deviations, including for anterior and posterior implant sites, ranged between 0.26 ± 0.11 mm [REVERSE] and 0.40 ± 0.09 mm [ACP_BED] at the implant shoulder, between 0.52 ± 0.24 mm [REVERSE] and 0.91 ± 0.24 mm [ACP_BED] at the implant apex, and between 1.68 and 2.35 degrees in angular deviation. Implant sites did not differ significantly, while some of the evaluation methods differed for shoulder and apex.
Conclusion: [REVERSE] revealed the smallest deviations between planned and actual implant position. 3D implant deviations were comparable with findings in the literature or even lower.
Keywords: 3D printing; accuracy; digital light processing (DLP); evaluation methods; implant surgical guides; static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS); trueness.