The accuracy comparison of 3D-printed post and core using castable resin and castable wax resin.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to compare the accuracy of three-dimensionally (3D) printed post and core fabricated with two different materials: reinforced wax and castable resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen extracted single root central incisors were selected. Root canal treatment and tooth preparation for crown were performed on all teeth. Eleven millimeters post space was created with standardized prefabricated fiber post drill. Polyvinylsiloxane impression material was used for root canal impressions. Each impression was then 3D scanned using an extraoral scanner and cast posts and cores were designed using 3Shape software. The digitally designed post and cores were 3D printed with two different materials: castable wax resin and castable resin. The castable resin patterns were scanned before and after complete polymerization. The wax patterns were also scanned. Digital volumetric measurement using Geomagic® Control X™ software was performed to determine accuracy. RESULTS: The printed post and core had reduced volume (16.09 ± 3.839 mm3 ) compared to the digital design (17.828 ± 3.904, p < 0.05). Before complete polymerization, the accuracy of 3D printed resin pattern (16.464 ± 3.017) was found to be superior to post and core printed with wax (16.193 ± 3.018, p < 0.05). However, no volume difference was found between completely polymerized resin (16.09 ± 3.839) and wax (16.044 ± 3.834, p = 1). CONCLUSION: 3D printed post and core showed significant volume shrinkage from the digital files used to create them. However, different materials had no effect on the accuracy of 3D printed post and core.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partially edentulous standardized mandibular implant model with different bone densities and soft tissue was duplicated and a diagnostic wax-up was performed for the #30 area. A reference radiographic guide was fabricated and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was made with the reference radiographic guide in place. A surgical guide was designed using BlueSky Plan 4 software and a reference implant was placed in the #30 region. The STL file of the surgical guide was exported and specimens (n = 15) were fabricated by two different techniques: additive (3D printing) and subtractive (milling). The standardized mandibular model was surface-scanned and duplicated with printed dental model resin (n = 30). Each surgical guide was used to place an implant in thirty duplicate printed models. Differences in implant position as compared to the reference were measured from digital scans with scan bodies in place. The angular deviations, differences in depth, coronal and apical deviations were measured using GeoMagic Control X software. Results were analyzed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance). Intraclass correlation was used to assess measurement reproducibility with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing as needed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in accuracy of implant placement using guides fabricated using additive vs subtractive techniques. The mean angular deviations between the reference and actual position of implant in mesio-distal cross-section were 0.780 ± 0.80° for printed group and 0.77 ± 0.72° for the milled group. The differences in bucco-lingual cross-section were 1.60 ± 1.22° in in printed group and 1.77 ± 0.76° in the milled group. The differences in depth (mm) were measured at the top of the scan body at four locations: mesial, distal, buccal and lingual. The mean differences in depth for the group that used printed surgical guides were (mesial) 0.37 ± 0.29 mm, (distal) 0.32 ± 0.23 mm, (buccal) 0.24 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.25 ± 0.17 mm. The mean differences in depth for the group that used milled surgical guides were (mesial) 0.51 ± 0.33 mm, (distal) 0.40 ± 0.32 mm, (buccal) 0.22 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.23 ± 0.12 mm in those four aspects, respectively. The mean coronal deviation showed 0.32 mm in the printed group and 0.27 mm in the milled group. For the apical deviation, the results of this study showed mean apical deviation 0.84 mm in the printed group and 0.80 mm in the milled group. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that 3D-printed surgical guides are statistically as accurate as milled guides for guided-implant surgery with the benefits of high accuracy, ease of fabrication, less waste compared to subtractive techniques, and reduction of laboratory time thereby increasing cost-effectiveness.