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.

The effect of a convergent transmucosal neck on soft tissues and radiographic outcomes: a 1-year follow-up randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate peri-implant marginal bone levels (MBLs) and soft tissue dimension changes 1 year after loading. Patients in the control group received bone-level implants, whereas in the test group, tissue-level implants with a convergent transmucosal neck were used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MBLs were calculated by measuring the distance from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone-to-implant contact using standardized periapical digital radiographs. Baseline (day of loading) and follow-up digital models obtained with an intraoral scanner were used to quantify the changes in the peri-implant soft tissue dimensions with a best-fit algorithm. RESULTS: The difference between final and baseline MBLs showed a mean bone loss of 0.16 ± 0.01 mm in the test group (n = 15) and 0.45 ± 0.09 mm in the control group (n = 14) (p > 0.05). Soft tissue contour at the level of the gingival margin (GM) increased by 1.96 ± 2.69 mm in the test group and 0.65 ± 0.42 mm in the control group (p = 0.167). Both groups showed a coronal displacement of the gingival margin with no significant differences among them. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated peri-implant hard and soft tissues stability at both implant designs with no significant differences 12 months after loading. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is still insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate the role and advantages of the convergent transmucosal neck on the behavior of the peri-implant soft and hard tissues stability compared to a straight neck in bone-level implants 12 months after loading.

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.