Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
J Prosthodont. 2021 Jan;30(1):71-75. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13227. Epub 2020 Aug 19.
To evaluate the effects of two postprocessing methods in terms of the overall, intaglio, and cameo surface dimensions of in-office stereolithographic fabricated implant surgical guides.
Twenty identical implant surgical guides were fabricated using a stereolithographic printer. Ten guides were postprocessed using an automated method. The other ten guides were postprocessed using a series of hand washing in combination with ultrasonics. Each guide was then scanned using cone-beam computed tomography to produce a set of digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files which were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. The STL file was then superimposed onto the original STL design file using the best fit alignment. The average positive and negative surface discrepancy differences in terms of means and variances were analyzed using t-test (α = 0.05).
For the alternative group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 77.38 ± 10.68 µm and -67.74 ± 6.55 µm; 78.83 ± 8.65 µm and -68.16 ± 5.26 µm; and 70.5 ± 8.48 µm -64.84 ± 5.55 µm, respectively. For the automated group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 51.88 ± 4.38 µm and -170.7 ± 11.49 µm; 64.3 ± 4.44 µm and -89.45 ± 6.25 µm; and 83.59 ± 4.81 µm and -144.26 ± 13.19 µm, respectively. There was a statistical difference between the means of the two methods for the overall, intaglio, and cameo positive and negative discrepancies (p < 0.001).
For a single implant tooth-supported implant guide, using hand washing with ultrasonics appeared to be consistently better than the automated method. The manual method presented with more positive discrepancies, while the automated method presented with more negative discrepancies.
评估两种后处理方法对口腔内立体光固化制作种植导板的整体、凹面和凸面尺寸的影响。
使用立体光固化打印机制作 20 个相同的种植手术导板。其中 10 个导板采用自动化方法进行后处理，另外 10 个导板采用手动清洗结合超声处理。每个导板都使用锥形束 CT 扫描，生成一组数字成像和通信医学（DICOM）文件，然后转换为标准曲面细分语言（STL）文件。然后，使用最佳拟合对齐方式将 STL 文件叠加到原始 STL 设计文件上。使用 t 检验（α=0.05）分析平均值和方差的正、负表面差异。
对于替代组，正、负整体、凹面和凸面表面差异的平均值分别为 77.38±10.68μm 和-67.74±6.55μm、78.83±8.65μm 和-68.16±5.26μm、70.5±8.48μm 和-64.84±5.55μm。对于自动化组，正、负整体、凹面和凸面表面差异的平均值分别为 51.88±4.38μm 和-170.7±11.49μm、64.3±4.44μm 和-89.45±6.25μm、83.59±4.81μm 和-144.26±13.19μm。两种方法的整体、凹面和凸面正、负差异均值存在统计学差异（p<0.001）。
对于单个种植体支持的种植导板，使用手动清洗结合超声处理的方法似乎始终优于自动化方法。手动方法呈现出更多的正差异，而自动化方法呈现出更多的负差异。
