Sun Yao, Ding Qian, Yuan Fusong, Zhang Lei, Sun Yuchun, Xie Qiufei
Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Department of Prosthodontics, The Third Clinic of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Oct;33(10):1000-1009. doi: 10.1111/clr.13981. Epub 2022 Jul 27.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of chairside, fused deposition modeling (FDM) three-dimensional (3D)-printed surgical guides with that of stereolithographic guides for implant placement in single edentulous sites within a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 participants with 30 single posterior edentulous sites were included. The sites were randomized into a FDM 3D-printed surgical guide group (test) or stereolithographic guide group (control) of equal size (n = 15). In both groups, digital implant planning was performed using data from cone beam-computed tomography and intraoral scans. The test group's surgical guides were fabricated using a chairside, FDM 3D-printer; those in the control group were fabricated using a light-curing 3D-printer. Postoperative intraoral scans were used to obtain the 3D position of the implants. Compared to preoperative design, the angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal deviations at the implant shoulder and apex were recorded. RESULTS: The workflow for the design and chairside fabrication of implant guides was established. The mean angular deviations of the test and control group were (4.23 ± 2.38) ° and (4.13 ± 2.42) ° (p > .05), respectively. The respective 3D deviations at the implant shoulder were (0.70 ± 0.44) mm and (0.55 ± 0.27) mm (p > .05); those at the implant apex were (1.25 ± 0.61) mm and (1.11 ± 0.54) mm (p > .05). The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant shoulder and apex did not significantly differ between the groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Implants for single posterior edentulous spaces were placed as accurately with the test guide as with the control. Further research under more complex situations involving multiple missing teeth is needed.
目的:在临床环境中,比较椅旁熔融沉积成型(FDM)三维(3D)打印手术导板与立体光刻导板在单颗牙缺失部位植入种植体的准确性。 材料与方法:共纳入28名参与者,有30个单颗后牙缺失部位。这些部位被随机分为大小相等的FDM 3D打印手术导板组(试验组)或立体光刻导板组(对照组)(n = 15)。两组均使用锥形束计算机断层扫描和口内扫描数据进行数字化种植体规划。试验组的手术导板使用椅旁FDM 3D打印机制作;对照组的手术导板使用光固化3D打印机制作。术后口内扫描用于获取种植体的三维位置。与术前设计相比,记录种植体肩部和根尖处的角度、三维、近远中、颊舌向和根尖冠向偏差。 结果:建立了种植体导板的设计和椅旁制作流程。试验组和对照组的平均角度偏差分别为(4.23±2.38)°和(4.13±2.42)°(p>0.05)。种植体肩部的三维偏差分别为(0.70±0.44)mm和(0.55±0.27)mm(p>0.05);种植体根尖处的三维偏差分别为(1.25±0.61)mm和(1.11±0.54)mm(p>0.05)。两组种植体肩部和根尖处的近远中、颊舌向和根尖冠向偏差无显著差异(p>0.05)。 结论:使用试验导板植入单颗后牙缺失间隙的种植体与使用对照导板植入的准确性相同。需要在涉及多颗牙齿缺失的更复杂情况下进行进一步研究。
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023-1-20