Current applications of 3D printing in dental implantology: A scoping review mapping the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence in the use of 3D printing technology in dental implantology. Due to the broad scope of the subject and its application in implantology, three main areas of focus were identified: (1) customized dental implants, (2) manufacturing workflow for surgical implant guides, and (3) related implant-supported prostheses factors, which include the metallic primary frameworks, secondary ceramic or polymer superstructures, and 3D implant analog models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online databases (Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) were used to identify the studies published up to February 2023 in English. Two experienced reviewers performed independently the screening and selection among the 1737 studies identified. The articles evaluated the additive manufacturing (AM) technology, materials, printing, and post-processing parameters regarding dental implantology. RESULTS: The 132 full-text studies that met the inclusion criteria were examined. Thirteen studies of customized dental implants, 22 studies about the workflow for surgical implant guides, and 30 studies of related implant-supported prostheses factors were included. CONCLUSIONS: (1) The clinical evidence about AM titanium and zirconia implants is scarce. Early data on survival rates, osseointegration, and mechanical properties are being reported. (2) 3D printing is a proven manufacturing technology to produce surgical implant guides. Adherence to the manufacturer's instructions is crucial and the best accuracy was achieved using MultiJet printer. (3) The quality of 3D printed prosthetic structures and superstructures is improving remarkably, especially on metallic alloys. However, better marginal fit and mechanical properties can be achieved with milling technology for metals and ceramics.

Accuracy of five different 3D printing workflows for dental models comparing industrial and dental desktop printers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of printed models using five different industrial and dental desktop 3D printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-arch digital models with scanbodies of 15 patients were printed with five different 3D printers. The industrial printers were 3D system Project MJP2500 (3DS) and Objet30 OrthoDesk (Obj). The dental desktop printers were NextDent 5100 (ND), Formlabs Form 2 (FL) and Rapidshape D30 (RS). A total of 225 printed models were analysed. The printed models were digitized and compared with the reference cast model using the Control X software (Geomagic). The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey test were performed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The one-way ANOVA for the trueness and precision of the printed model presented the best results for the 3DS, followed by ND, Obj, FL and RS (P < 0.01). In the scanbody zone, the best results were for the 3DS group, followed by Obj, ND, FL and RS (P < 0.01). Comparing the technologies, the Multijet technology used in industrial printers presented better results than the DLP and SLA technologies used in dental desktop printers (P > 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There were statistically significant differences in terms of the accuracy of the printed models, with better results for the industrial than the dental desktop 3D printers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The industrial 3D printers used in dental laboratories presented better accuracy than the in-office dental desktop 3D printers, and this should be considered when the best accuracy is needed to perform final prosthetic restorations.

Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: clinical findings.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical aspects of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions. METHODS: Thirty patients with 30 posterior teeth with the need of a crown restoration were selected. Zirconia-based ceramic crowns were made using an intraoral digital impression system (TRIOS®, 3shape) and two-step silicone impression technique. Two external blinded operators evaluated the all-ceramic crowns. Five selection items were assessed of which four were clinical: "marginal fit," "occlusal contacts," "interproximal contact points," and "primary retention." Then, the last selection item "final selection" was assessed when the operators considering all the variables had to select which of the digital or conventional crown had the best clinical conditions. Data was analyzed using Kappa index test and the Pearson's chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For the items marginal fit and interproximal contact points, moderate agreement between the two operators was described and significant differences were found between the two study groups. Conversely, for the variables primary retention and occlusal contacts, the agreement between the operators was fair and no significant differences were found. For the final selection, a substantial agreement was reached between the two operators and significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In most cases and in a significant way, the digital crowns had better clinical conditions according to both evaluators. The digital crowns were statistically superior for the interproximal contact points and marginal fit. For the variables occlusal contacts and primary retention, no difference between the two groups was observed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Digital intraoral impressions can be used for manufacturing ceramic crowns, with the same or better clinical results as conventional impressions.