Accuracy of additively manufactured and steam sterilized surgical guides by means of continuous liquid interface production, stereolithography, digital light processing, and fused filament fabrication.

Different printing technologies can be used for prosthetically oriented implant placement, however the influence of different printing orientations and steam sterilization remains unclear. In particular, no data is available for the novel technology Continuous Liquid Interface Production. The objective was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with different printing techniques in vertical and horizontal printing orientation before and after steam sterilization. A total of 80 surgical guides were manufactured by means of continuous liquid interface production (CLIP; material: Keyguide, Keyprint), digital light processing (DLP; material: Luxaprint Ortho, DMG), stereolithography (SLA; Surgical guide, Formlabs), and fused filament fabrication (FFF; material: Clear Base Support, Arfona) in vertical and horizontal printing orientation (n = 10 per subgroup). Spheres were included in the design to determine the coordinates of 17 reference points. Each specimen was digitized with a laboratory scanner after additive manufacturing (AM) and after steam sterilization (134 °C). To determine the accuracy, root mean square values (RMS) were calculated and coordinates of the reference points were recorded. Based on the measured coordinates, deviations of the reference points and relevant distances were calculated. Paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA were applied for statistical analysis (significance p < 0.05). After AM, all printing technologies showed comparable high accuracy, with an increased deviation in z-axis when printed horizontally. After sterilization, FFF printed surgical guides showed distinct warpage. The other subgroups showed no significant differences regarding the RMS of the corpus after steam sterilization (p > 0.05). Regarding reference points and distances, CLIP showed larger deviations compared to SLA in both printing orientations after steam sterilization, while DLP manufactured guides were the most dimensionally stable. In conclusion, the different printing technologies and orientations had little effect on the manufacturing accuracy of the surgical guides before sterilization. However, after sterilization, FFF surgical guides exhibited significant deformation making their clinical use impossible. CLIP showed larger deformations due to steam sterilization than the other photopolymerizing techniques, however, discrepancies may be considered within the range of clinical acceptance. The influence on the implant position remains to be evaluated.

Influence of planning software and template design on the accuracy of static computer assisted implant surgery performed using guides fabricated with material extrusion technology: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study aimed to assess the influence of the planning software and design of the surgical template on both trueness and precision of static computer assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed using guides fabricated using material extrusion (ME). METHODS: Three-dimensional radiographic and surface scans of a typodont were aligned using two planning software (coDiagnostiX, CDX; ImplantStudio, IST) to virtually position the two adjacent oral implants. Thereafter, surgical guides were fabricated with either an original (O) or modified (M) design with reduced occlusal support and were sterilized. Forty surgical guides were used to install 80 implants equally distributed amongst four groups: CDX-O, CDX-M, IST-O, and IST-M. Thereafter, the scan bodies were adapted to the implants and digitized. Finally, inspection software was used to assess discrepancies between the planned and final positions at the implant shoulder and main axis level. Multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models were used for statistical analyses (p = 0.05). RESULTS: In terms of trueness, the largest average vertical deviations (0.29 ± 0.07 mm) were be assessed for CDX-M. Overall, vertical errors were dependant on the design (O < M; p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, in horizontal direction, the largest mean discrepancy was 0.32 ± 0.09 mm (IST-O) and 0.31 ± 0.13 mm (CDX-M). CDX-O was superior compared to IST-O (p = 0.003) regarding horizontal trueness. The average deviations regarding the main implant axis ranged between 1.36 ± 0.41° (CDX-O) and 2.63 ± 0.87° (CDX-M). In terms of precision, mean standard deviation intervals of ≤ 0.12 mm (IST-O and -M) and ≤ 1.09° (CDX-M) were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Implant installation with clinically acceptable deviations is possible with ME surgical guides. Both evaluated variables affected trueness and precision with negligible differences. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The planning system and design influenced the accuracy of implant installation using ME-based surgical guides. Nevertheless, discrepancies were ≤ 0.32 mm and ≤ 2.63°, which may be considered within the range of clinical acceptance. ME should be further investigated as an alternative to the more expensive and time-consuming 3D printing technologies.