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.

Accuracy of additively manufactured zirconia four-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by stereolithography, digital light processing and material jetting compared with subtractive manufacturing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the manufacturing accuracy of zirconia four-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated by three different additive manufacturing technologies compared with subtractive manufacturing. METHODS: A total of 79 zirconia FDPs were produced by three different manufacturing technologies, representing additive (one stereolithography [aSLA] and one material jetting [aMJ] device, two digital light processing [aDLP1/aDLP2] devices) and subtractive manufacturing (two devices [s1/s2]), the latter serving as references. After printing, additively manufactured FDPs were debound and finally sintered. Subsequently, samples were circumferentially digitized and acquired surface areas were split in three Regions Of Interest (ROIs: inner/outer shell, margin). Design and acquired data were compared for accuracy using an inspection software. Statistical evaluation was performed using the root mean square error (RMSE) and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis method with post hoc Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U tests. Bonferroni correction was applied in case of multiple testing. RESULTS: Regardless the ROI, significant differences were observed between manufacturing technologies (P < 0.001). Subtractive manufacturing was the most accurate with no significant difference regarding the material/device (s1/s2, P > 0.054). Likewise, no statistical difference regarding accurary was found when comparing s2 with aMJ and aSLA in most ROIs (P > 0.085). In general, mean surface deviation was< 50 µm for s1/s2 and aMJ and< 100 µm for aSLA and aDLP2. aDLP1 showed surface deviations> 100 µm and was the least accurate compared to the other additive/subtractive technologies. SIGNIFICANCE: Additive manufacturing represents a promising set of technologies for the manufacturing of zirconia FDPs, but not yet as accurate as subtractive manufacturing. Methodological impact on accuracy within and in between different additive technologies needs to be further investigated.