Effect of 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accumulative effect of 3D printer, implant analog systems, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. METHODS: A reference cast, presenting a case of a three-unit implant-supported prosthesis, was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine, producing the first reference data set (CMM, n = 1). The second reference data set (n = 10) was prepared using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4). Test quadrant casts were produced using three DLP type 3D printers, Max (MAX UV385), Pro (PRO 4K65 UV), and Nex (NextDent 5100), and three implant analog systems, El (Elos), Nt (Nt-trading), and St (Straumann) (n = 90). Stone casts were also produced via analog impressions (Stone, n = 10). After digitization, the accuracy of 3D distance, local angulation (angle between implants) and global angulation (angle between the implant center axis and an axis perpendicular to the global plane) was evaluated by comparing the reference (CMM, IOS), test (3D print), and control (Stone) groups using metrology software. Data were statistically analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS was truer in 3D implant distance and more precise in capturing local angulation than Stone (p ≤ 0.05). Other measurements were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). The amount of error introduced in the workflow by IOS and 3D printing was mostly similar (p > 0.05). 3D printed casts had similar or even higher accuracy than Stone group (p > 0.05). In most cases, higher trueness was achieved when using PRO 4K65 UV 3D printer and Elos implant analog system (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation have a significant effect on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. Limited-span implant-supported cases could be reproduced digitally with similar accuracy as conventional methods. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A fully digital workflow with a carefully selected 3D printer and implant analog system can increase the accuracy of digitally produced implant casts with comparable accuracy to conventional workflow.

Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP). METHODS: Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Welch's t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them. METHODS: An Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS. RESULTS: The results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: within the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Trueness of Crown Preparation Dies in Dental Models: An In Vitro Assessment of Digital and Analog Workflows.

PURPOSE: To assess crown die trueness using additive manufacturing (AM) based on intraoral scanning (IOS) data and compare it with stone models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crown dies with four finish line types- equigingival shoulder (SAE), subgingival shoulder (SAS), equigingival chamfer (CAE), and subgingival chamfer (CAS)-were incorporated into a reference model and scanned with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM; n = 1 scan). Trios4 (3Shape) scans generated a second reference dataset (IOS; n = 10 scans). Using scans, crown dies were produced with two different 3D printers (MAX UV385 [Asiga] and NextDent 5100 [3DSystems]; n = 10 per system). Stone dies were created from conventional impressions (n = 10). Specimens were digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape). Trueness was evaluated with Geomagic Control X (3DSystems). Data analysis was done using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene, ANOVA, and t tests (α < .05). RESULTS: All crown dies fell within the clinically acceptable trueness range (150 µm). IOS exhibited significantly lower (P < .05; Δ ≤ 21.7 µm) or similar trueness compared to stone models. Asiga dies demonstrated similar and NextDent significantly lower marginal trueness than IOS (P < .05; Δ ≤ 57.3 µm). Most AM margin areas had significantly lower trueness than stone (P < .001; Δ ≤ 57.2 µm). Asiga outperformed NextDent (P < .001). Shoulder trueness surpassed chamfer in optical scans (P = .01). Finish line design and gingiva location did not have a significant impact on AM and stone models (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Combining IOS and AM achieves clinically acceptable crown die trueness for single molar teeth. The choice of AM device is critical, with Asiga outperforming NextDent. Finish-line design has an impact on optical scans. Finish-line design and marginal gingiva location have little effect on AM trueness.

Influence of Kennedy class and number of implants on the accuracy of dynamic implant navigation: An in vitro study using an X-ray free evaluation methodology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of fully guided dynamic implant navigation surgery in Kennedy I, II, and III class dental arch defects with two different implant designs, using an X-ray free evaluation method. METHODS: Polyurethane resin maxillary models simulated posterior edentulous defects. Four cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and four intraoral (IOS) scans were obtained for each model and a digital wax-up with the correct implant positions was made. The accuracy of implant positions was evaluated using an IOS-based X-ray-free method (3Shape). Four deviation characteristics were evaluated: insertion point, depth deviation, horizontal and angle deviation. RESULTS: The insertion point deviation measures ranged from 0.19 mm to 1.71 mm. Depth (s) and (u) deviations ranged from -1.47 mm to 0.74 mm and from 0.02 mm to 1.47 mm, respectively. Horizontal deviation ranged from 0.09 mm to 1.37 mm. CONCLUSIONS: There is a tendency of a decreasing insertion point deviation for an increasing number and distribution area of the teeth (increasing Kennedy class number). Kennedy class II and distal implant position had the most influence for the higher deviations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dynamic implant guidance provides accurate spacing, angulation, depth and position of the implants. It is important to understand how the number of missing teeth and implant design could influence the accuracy of dynamic implant navigation. Thus, it is important to evaluate factors influencing the accuracy of dynamic systems by using a X-ray-free post-operative method and to overcome the limitations of providing multiple CBCT scans.

Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate deviation propagation from data acquisition with an intraoral scanner to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models. METHODS: A reference (Ref) mandibular dentate model having 5 precision spheres was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine equipped with a laser scanning head (ALTERA; Nikon) producing a Ni reference data set (n = 1). Digital impressions were taken of the Ref model with intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4; 3Shape) with Insane (T4_Imo) and Classic (T4_Cmo) scanning modes (each n = 10). T4_Imo scans were used as a second reference data set and to produce test models with two additive manufacturing (AM) devices (each n = 10): MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems). As for the control group, dual viscosity vinyl polysiloxane impressions were taken of the Ref model and poured with Type IV dental stone (n = 10). All AM and stone models were scanned with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape). Trueness and precision of linear (intermolar and intercanine width, arch length) and surface deviations were measured between reference (Ni, T4_Imo), test (T4_Cmo, AM), and control (stone) groups using best-fit alignments (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems). The normality of data and differences between the groups were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Mann-Whitney U, Welch's t-test statistical analysis (p<0.05). RESULTS: The accuracy of the IOS impression was not significantly affected by the scanning mode (p>0.05). Stone models showed significantly better trueness than IOS impressions (p<0.05). AM models had higher trueness than IOS Imo digital impressions (p<0.05). The precision of AM models was comparable (linear, p>0.05) or lower (surface, p<0.05) than of IOS Imo digital impressions. Trueness was insignificantly different among the stone and AM models (p>0.05). Higher trueness was achieved by Max UV385 than with Nextdent 5100 (p<0.05). The majority of linear and all surface deviations of IOS impressions and AM models were below 200 µm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital IOS impressions and AM models using the aforementioned equipment have acceptable accuracy for orthodontic and prosthodontic applications when complete-arch dentate records are used. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: IOS and AM devices can have a significant influence on error propagation when applying digital workflow with complete-arch dentate models.

Accuracy of Fixed Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses Additively Manufactured by Metal, Ceramic, or Polymer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Additive manufacturing (AM) in prosthodontics is used as an alternative to casting or milling. Various techniques and materials are available for the additive manufacturing of the fixed and removable tooth-supported restorations, but there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of AM fixed implant-supported prostheses. Recent studies investigated the accuracy of ceramic AM prostheses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of additively manufactured metal, ceramic or polymers, and screw- or cement-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two calibrated investigators performed an electronic search of relevant publications in the English language following selected PICOS criteria and using a well-defined search strategy (latest search date-1st of June, 2021). Based on the exclusion criteria (no control group, less than five samples per group, 3D printing of the implant abutment part, only subjective evaluation of accuracy, etc.) studies were not included in the review. Quantitative data of accuracy evaluation such as marginal gap, strain analysis, and linear measurements was extracted and interpreted. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of methodological bias of all included studies. RESULTS: Sixteen in vitro studies were selected for the final analysis. Six of the selected studies evaluated screw-retained restorations and 10 cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Only 4 publications concluded that AM restorations were more accurate than conventionally made (cast or milled) ones. The most common finding was that AM restorations were more accurate than cast and demonstrated less or similar accuracy compared to milled ones (n = 10 studies). Detected marginal discrepancies mean values of the AM prosthesis varied from 23 to more than 200 µm, but most of them were categorized as clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: AM implant-supported fixed prostheses demonstrate similar accuracy compared to conventional and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing techniques in vitro. Detected inaccuracies of AM restorations do not exceed clinically acceptable limits. Clinical studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to show the reliability of AM prostheses.