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

被引:23
作者
Ammoun, Rami [1 ]
Dalal, Nishchal [2 ]
Abdulmajeed, Aous A. [2 ]
Deeb, George R. [3 ]
Bencharit, Sompop [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[2] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Gen Practice, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[3] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[4] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Coll Engn, Dept Biomed Engn, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY | 2021年 / 30卷 / 01期
关键词
MECHANICAL-PROPERTIES; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1111/jopr.13227
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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 (alpha = 0.05). Results For the alternative group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 77.38 +/- 10.68 mu m and -67.74 +/- 6.55 mu m; 78.83 +/- 8.65 mu m and -68.16 +/- 5.26 mu m; and 70.5 +/- 8.48 mu m -64.84 +/- 5.55 mu m, respectively. For the automated group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 51.88 +/- 4.38 mu m and -170.7 +/- 11.49 mu m; 64.3 +/- 4.44 mu m and -89.45 +/- 6.25 mu m; and 83.59 +/- 4.81 mu m and -144.26 +/- 13.19 mu m, 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.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 75
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   In Vivo Tooth-Supported Implant Surgical Guides Fabricated With Desktop Stereolithographic Printers: Fully Guided Surgery Is More Accurate Than Partially Guided Surgery [J].
Bencharit, Sompop ;
Staffen, Adam ;
Yeung, Matthew ;
Whitley, Daniel, III ;
Laskin, Daniel M. ;
Deeb, George R. .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2018, 76 (07) :1431-1439
[2]   An overview of additive manufacturing (3D printing) for microfabrication [J].
Bhushan, Bharat ;
Caspers, Matt .
MICROSYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES-MICRO-AND NANOSYSTEMS-INFORMATION STORAGE AND PROCESSING SYSTEMS, 2017, 23 (04) :1117-1124
[3]   Accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates [J].
Chen, Li ;
Lin, Wei-Shao ;
Polido, Waldemar D. ;
Eckert, George J. ;
Morton, Dean .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 122 (03) :309-314
[4]   Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting [J].
Dalal, Nishchal ;
Ammoun, Rami ;
Abdulmajeed, Aous A. ;
Deeb, George R. ;
Bencharit, Sompop .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2020, 29 (02) :161-165
[5]   How Accurate Are Implant Surgical Guides Produced With Desktop Stereolithographic 3-Dimentional Printers? [J].
Deeb, George R. ;
Allen, Riley K. ;
Hall, V. Patrick ;
Whitley, Daniel, III ;
Laskin, Daniel M. ;
Bencharit, Sompop .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2017, 75 (12) :2559.e1-2559.e8
[6]   Exploring training dental implant placement using computer-guided implant navigation system for predoctoral students: A pilot study [J].
Deeb, Janina Golob ;
Bencharit, Sompop ;
Carrico, Caroline K. ;
Lukic, Marija ;
Hawkins, Daniel ;
Rener-Sitar, Ksenija ;
Deeb, George R. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION, 2019, 23 (04) :415-423
[7]  
Edelmann AR, 2016, J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V42, P233, DOI [10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-15-00056, 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-15-00056]
[8]  
Ersoy AE, 2008, J PERIODONTOL, V79, P1339, DOI [10.1902/jop.2008.080059, 10.1902/jop.2008.080059 ]
[9]  
Geng W, 2015, INT J CLIN EXP MED, V8, P8442
[10]  
Groth Christian, 2018, J Clin Orthod, V52, P28