Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Dimensional Stability of Additively Manufactured Surgical Templates.

Li Chen,Wei-Shao Lin,Waldemar D Polido,George J Eckert,Dean Morton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.007
2019-01-01
Abstract:STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:Additively manufactured surgical templates are commonly used for computer-guided implant placement. However, their accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability have not been thoroughly investigated with the different 3D printers and materials used for their fabrication.PURPOSE:The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates fabricated by using different 3D printers.MATERIAL AND METHODS:Thirty surgical templates were designed and additively manufactured from 3 different 3D printers as follows: group SLA (n=10) was fabricated by using a desktop stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer and photopolymerizing resin; group PolyJet (n=10) was fabricated by using a PolyJet 3D printer and photopolymerizing resins; and group DMP (n=10) was fabricated by using a direct metal printing (DMP) system and Co-Cr metal alloy. All surgical templates were scanned by using a laser scanner within 36 hours of production and digitalized again 1 month later. All scanned files were compared with the corresponding designed files in a surface matching software program. The mean deviation root mean square (RMS, measured in mm, representing accuracy), percentage of measurement data points within 1 standard deviation of mean RMS (in %, representing reproducibility), and dimensional changes were determined and compared.RESULTS:At the postproduction stage, group PolyJet was most accurate with the lowest RMS value of 0.10 ±0.02 mm and highest reproducibility with 93.07 ±1.54% of measurement data points within 1 standard deviation of mean RMS. After 1-month storage, group PolyJet(1month) remained the most accurate with the lowest RMS value of 0.14 ±0.03 mm and the highest reproducibility value of 92.46 ±1.50%. For dimensional stability, group SLA versus group SLA(1month) comparison showed a significant decrease in accuracy (RMS values of 0.20 ±0.08 mm versus 0.25 ±0.08 mm, P<.001) and reproducibility (88.16 ±3.66% versus 86.10 ±4.16%, P=.012). Group PolyJet versus group PolyJet(1month) comparison only showed significant changes in accuracy (RMS values of 0.10 ±0.02 mm versus 0.14 ±0.03 mm, P=.011). Group DMP versus group DMP(1month) comparison showed no significant changes in accuracy (RMS values of 0.19 ±0.03 mm versus 0.20 ±0.04 mm, P=.981) or reproducibility (89.77 ±1.61% versus 89.74 ±2.24%, P=1.000).CONCLUSIONS:Printed resin surgical templates produced by using the PolyJet 3D printer showed higher accuracy and reproducibility than those produced by using the desktop SLA 3D printer and printed Co-Cr surgical templates at both the postproduction stage and after 1-month storage. The level of accuracy and reproducibility in printed Co-Cr surgical templates was not affected by 1-month storage.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?