Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain.
Graduate Prosthodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA.
J Prosthodont. 2018 Jul;27(6):560-567. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12708. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
To compare the accuracy of implant analog positions on complete edentulous maxillary casts made of either dental stone or additive manufactured polymers using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM).
A completely edentulous maxillary model of a patient with 7 implant analogs was obtained. From this model, two types of casts were duplicated, namely conventional dental stone (CDS) using a custom tray impression technique after splinting (N = 5) and polymer cast using additive manufacturing based on the STL file generated. Polymer casts (N = 20; n = 5 per group) were fabricated using 4 different additive manufacturing technologies (multijet printing-MJP1, direct light processing-DLP, stereolithography-SLA, multijet printing-MJP2). CMM was used to measure the correct position of each implant, and distortion was calculated for each system at x-, y-, and z-axes. Measurements were repeated 3 times per specimen in each axis yielding a total of 546 measurements. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Sheffé tests, and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
Compared to CMM, the mean distortion (μm) ranged from 22.7 to 74.9, 23.4 to 49.1, and 11.0 to 85.8 in the x-, y-, and z-axes, respectively. CDS method (x-axis: 37.1; z-axis: 27.62) showed a significant difference compared to DLP on the x-axis (22.7) (p = 0.037) and to MJP1 on the z-axis (11.0) (p = 0.003). Regardless of the cast system, x-axes showed more distortion (42.6) compared to y- (34.6) and z-axes (35.97). Among additive manufacturing technologies, MJP2 presented the highest (64.3 ± 83.6), and MJP1 (21.57 ± 16.3) and DLP (27.07 ± 20.23) the lowest distortion, which was not significantly different from CDS (32.3 ± 22.73) (p > 0.05).
For the fabrication of the definitive casts for implant prostheses, one of the multijet printing systems and direct light processing additive manufacturing technologies showed similar results to conventional dental stone.
Conventional dental stone casts could be accurately duplicated using some of the additive manufacturing technologies tested.
使用坐标测量机（CMM）比较全口无牙颌模型上用牙科石膏或增材制造聚合物制成的种植体模拟位置的准确性。
获得一位有 7 个种植体模拟物的完全无牙上颌模型。从该模型中，复制了两种类型的模型，即使用定制托盘印模技术（N=5）后夹固的常规牙科石膏（CDS）和基于生成的 STL 文件使用增材制造的聚合物模型。使用 4 种不同的增材制造技术（多喷射打印-MJP1、直接光处理-DLP、立体光刻-SLA、多喷射打印-MJP2）制造聚合物模型（N=20；每组 n=5）。使用 CMM 测量每个植入物的正确位置，并计算每个系统在 x、y 和 z 轴上的失真。每个标本在每个轴上重复测量 3 次，共获得 546 次测量。使用方差分析、谢菲检验和 Bonferroni 校正（α=0.05）对数据进行分析。
与 CMM 相比，在 x、y 和 z 轴上的平均失真（μm）范围分别为 22.7 至 74.9、23.4 至 49.1 和 11.0 至 85.8。与 DLP 在 x 轴上（22.7）（p=0.037）和 MJP1 在 z 轴上（11.0）（p=0.003）相比，CDS 方法（x 轴：37.1；z 轴：27.62）在 x 轴上显示出显著差异。无论铸造系统如何，x 轴的失真（42.6）均高于 y 轴（34.6）和 z 轴（35.97）。在增材制造技术中，MJP2 显示出最高的失真（64.3±83.6），而 MJP1（21.57±16.3）和 DLP（27.07±20.23）的失真最低，与 CDS（32.3±22.73）相比无显著差异（p＞0.05）。
对于用于制作种植体修复体的最终模型，其中一种多喷射打印系统和直接光处理增材制造技术的结果与常规牙科石膏相似。
使用测试的一些增材制造技术可以准确复制常规牙科石膏模型。
