Accuracy of Implant Analogs in 3D Printed Resin Models

Positional accuracy of a single implant analog in additively manufactured casts in biobased model resin

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts.

METHODS

Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

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.

Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation

PURPOSE

To study the effect of implant angulation on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in printed resin models and conventional stone casts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three sectional master models with two implants with total inter-implant angulations of 0°, 10°, and 20° were fabricated. For each master model, five conventional stone casts (CS) and printed resin models (PM) were fabricated (n = 5). Test models were made with nonsplinted impression copings and open tray polyether impressions for the CS groups and scan bodies scanned using an intraoral scanner for the PM groups. The physical positions of the implants and implant analogs were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D positional accuracy of the analogs in the test models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyze data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Mean ΔR was significantly greater for PM10 (73.5 ± 8.9 µm) and PM20 (65.5 ± 33.3 µm) compared to CS0 (16.8 ± 14.1 µm), CS10 (22.2 ± 13.0 µm), CS20 (15.6 ± 19.9 µm), and PM0 (23.9 ± 16.1 µm). For Absdθ, there were no significant differences between test groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With conventional stone casts, implant angulation had no significant effect on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions. Amongst printed resin models test groups, angulated implants had significantly greater ΔR. Amongst angulated implants test groups, printed resin models had significantly greater ΔR than conventional stone casts. Compared to the master model, all test groups, regardless of inter-implant angulation, produced greater inter-analog distances.

Additive manufacturing technologies in the oral implant clinic: A review of current applications and progress

Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies can enable the direct fabrication of customized physical objects with complex shapes, based on computer-aided design models. This technology is changing the digital manufacturing industry and has become a subject of considerable interest in digital implant dentistry. Personalized dentistry implant treatments for individual patients can be achieved through Additive manufacturing. Herein, we review the applications of Additive manufacturing technologies in oral implantology, including implant surgery, and implant and restoration products, such as surgical guides for implantation, custom titanium meshes for bone augmentation, personalized or non-personalized dental implants, custom trays, implant casts, and implant-support frameworks, among others. In addition, this review also focuses on Additive manufacturing technologies commonly used in oral implantology. Stereolithography, digital light processing, and fused deposition modeling are often used to construct surgical guides and implant casts, whereas direct metal laser sintering, selective laser melting, and electron beam melting can be applied to fabricate dental implants, personalized titanium meshes, and denture frameworks. Moreover, it is sometimes required to combine Additive manufacturing technology with milling and other cutting and finishing techniques to ensure that the product is suitable for its final application.

Influence of digital implant analog design on the positional trueness of an analog in additively manufactured models: An in-vitro study

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists regarding the accuracy of implant analog position in printed models, particularly when implant analogs with varying designs are used.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of digital implant analog (DIA) design on the trueness of their position in additively manufactured digital implant models (DIMs) and to compare with that of a conventional implant analog in a stone cast.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A dentate maxillary model with a conventional implant analog (Nobel Biocare Implant Replica 4.3 mm CC RP) at left second premolar site was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) and a (SB) scan body to generate the master standard tessellation language (STL) file (M0). 12 custom trays were fabricated on M0 file and conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model were made. All impressions were poured after inserting conventional implant analogs (Nobel RP Implant Replica) (Group A). Model was then digitized with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) and the same SB, and DIMs with three different DIA designs (Nobel Biocare [Group B], Elos [Group C], and NT-trading [Group D]) were generated (Dental System-Model Builder). 12 DIMs of each design were additively manufactured and corresponding DIAs were inserted. All models were digitized by using the same laboratory scanner and SB, and these STLs were transferred to a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control X), where the STL files of the models were superimposed over M0. Linear and 3D deviations at three selected points on SB (implant-abutment connection, most cervical point on SB, and most coronal point on SB) as well as angular deviations on two planes (buccolingual and mesiodistal) were calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni corrected t-tests were used to analyze the trueness of implant analog positions (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The interaction of main effects significantly affected linear (p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p = 0.020). At point 1, group D had higher deviations than groups A and B (p ≤ 0.015). In addition, groups A and D had higher deviations than group B at point 4 (p < 0.001). While group C had similar linear deviations to those of other groups at point 1 and point 4 (p ≥ 0.192), the differences among test groups at point 2 were nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.276). Group B had lower angular deviations than groups C (p = 0.039) and D (p = 0.006) on buccolingual plane.

CONCLUSIONS

Analog design affected the trueness of analog position as proprietary, pressure/friction fit DIA (group B) had higher linear trueness than screw-retained DIA (Group D) and conventional implant analog (group A). In addition, pressure/friction fit DIA had the highest angular trueness among tested DIAs.

Accuracy of 3D printed models and implant-analog positions according to the implant-analog-holder offset, inner structure, and printing layer thickness: an in-vitro study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine how the implant-analog-holder (IAH) offset, inner structure, and printing layer thickness influence the overall accuracy and local implant-analog positional changes of 3D printed dental models.

METHODS

Specimens in 12 experimental groups (8 specimens per group) with different IAH offsets, inner structures, and printing layer thicknesses were printed in three dimensions using an LCD printer (Phrozen Shuffle) and digitized by a laboratory scanner (Identica T500). The trueness and precision of the printed model as well as the angular distortion, depth deviation, and linear distortion of the implant analog were evaluated using three-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The positional accuracy was significantly higher for IAH offsets of 0.04 mm and 0.06 mm than for one of 0.08 mm, for a hollow than a solid inner structure, and for a printing layer thickness of 100 µm than for one of 50 µm (all P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracies of the 3D printed models and the implant-analog positions were significantly affected by the IAH offset, inner structure, and printing layer thickness.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Given the observation of this study, premeditating the IAH offset of 0.06 mm, hollow inner structure, and printing layer thickness of 100 µm before printing can help clinicians reach the optimum overall printing accuracy and minimum the local positional changes of the implant-analogs.

Efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments in CAD-CAM manufactured single implant crowns - cast-free vs 3D printed cast-based

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments of single implant crowns (SIC), comparing a digital cast-free approach (CF) and a protocol using 3D printed casts (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A titanium implant was inserted at position of lower right first molar in a typodont. The implant position was scanned using an intraoral scanner and SICs were fabricated accordingly. Ten crowns (CF; n = 10) were subject to a digital cast-free workflow without any labside occlusal and interproximal modifications. Ten other identical crowns (PC) were adjusted to 3D printed casts before delivery. All crowns were then adapted to the testing model, simulating chair-side adjustments during clinical placement. Adjustment time, quantity of adjustments, and contact relationship were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (P < .05).

RESULTS

Median and interquartile range (IQR) of clinical adjustment time was 02:44 (IQR 00:45) minutes in group CF and 01:46 (IQR 00:21) minutes in group PC. Laboratory and clinical adjustment time in group PC was 04:25 (IQR 00:59) minutes in total. Mean and standard deviation (±SD) of root mean squared error (RMSE) of quantity of clinical adjustments was 45 ± 7 µm in group CF and 34 ± 6 µm in group PC. RMSE of total adjustments was 61 ± 11 µm in group PC. Quality of occlusal contacts was better in group CF.

CONCLUSION

Time effort for clinical adjustments was higher in the cast-free protocol, whereas quantity of modifications was lower, and the occlusal contact relationship was found more favourable.