Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2019
Accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling 3D-printed single-tooth surgical template for implant placement: An in vitro comparison with a light cured template.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sun Yao, Ding Qian, Tang Lin, Zhang Lei, Sun Yuchun, Xie Qiufei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a chairside fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed surgical template with that of a light-cured template for implant placement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty standard mandibular resin models with missing teeth 36 and 46 were selected. Surgical templates were fabricated using a chairside FDM 3D-printer (test group) or a light-curing 3D printer (control group) (n = 20/group). Forty implants were placed by a clinician blinded to group allocation. The angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip between preoperative design and postoperative implant position were recorded.
RESULTS: The mean angular (test vs control groups: 3.22° ± 1.55° vs 2.74° ± 1.24°, p = 0.343) and 3D deviations at the implant base (test vs control groups: 0.41 ± 0.13 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.11 mm, p = 0.127) and tip (test vs control groups: 0.91 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.75 ± 0.28 mm, p = 0.150) were similar. The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip also did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For single tooth gap indications, implant placement with an FDM 3D-printed surgical template was as accurate as that with a light-cured template, and more efficient.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty standard mandibular resin models with missing teeth 36 and 46 were selected. Surgical templates were fabricated using a chairside FDM 3D-printer (test group) or a light-curing 3D printer (control group) (n = 20/group). Forty implants were placed by a clinician blinded to group allocation. The angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip between preoperative design and postoperative implant position were recorded.
RESULTS: The mean angular (test vs control groups: 3.22° ± 1.55° vs 2.74° ± 1.24°, p = 0.343) and 3D deviations at the implant base (test vs control groups: 0.41 ± 0.13 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.11 mm, p = 0.127) and tip (test vs control groups: 0.91 ± 0.34 mm vs 0.75 ± 0.28 mm, p = 0.150) were similar. The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant base and tip also did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For single tooth gap indications, implant placement with an FDM 3D-printed surgical template was as accurate as that with a light-cured template, and more efficient.