Salazar Rios Alma L, Kesterke Matthew J, Pylant George D, Barmak Abdul B, Kontogiorgos Elias D, Revilla-León Marta
Graduate student, Graduate Program in Prosthodontics, Comprehensive Dentistry Department, School of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas.
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas.
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.016.
The accuracy of printed implant surgical guides can be affected by different factors that negatively impact the planned implant position. How print orientation, storage time, and conditions influence manufacturing accuracy remains uncertain.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of print orientation, storage conditions, and storage time on the intaglio surface accuracy of implant surgical guides manufactured by using a stereolithography (SLA) printer.
A tooth-supported maxillary implant surgical guide design (control file) was used to fabricate the specimens (N=40, n=10). Four groups were created based on the print orientation used: 0 (Group 0), 45 (Group 45), 70 (Group 70), and 90 degrees (Group 90). The specimens were fabricated using an SLA printer (Form 3B+) and a biocompatible dental resin (Surgical Guide Resin V1) following the manufacturer's recommended protocol. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups based on the storage conditions: light (L subgroup) and dark (D subgroup) settings. Each specimen was digitized by using a desktop scanner (Medit T710) at days 0, 1, 7, and 14. The control file and each digitized specimen were superimposed by using the best-fit technique with a metrology program (Geomagic Control X). The root mean square (RMS) error was used to calculate the discrepancies between the control files and specimen files. Three-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to assess precision (α=.05).
Significant trueness discrepancies were found among the groups tested (P<.001), but no significant differences were found among the subgroups (P=.100) and the storage times analyzed (P=.609). Additionally, the Tukey test showed significant RMS error mean value discrepancies between Group 0 and Group 45 (P<.001), Group 0 and Group 90 (P<.001), Group 45 and Group 70 (P<.001), and Group 70 and Group 90 (P<.001). The Levene test revealed significant SD discrepancies among the groups tested (P<.05).
The trueness and precision of the intaglio surface of the implant surgical guides manufactured by using the printer and material tested were affected by the print orientation. However, storage conditions over a 14-day period did not impact the intaglio accuracy of the specimens.
打印的种植体手术导板的准确性可能会受到不同因素的影响，这些因素会对计划的种植体位置产生负面影响。打印方向、储存时间和条件如何影响制造精度仍不确定。
本体外研究的目的是评估打印方向、储存条件和储存时间对使用立体光刻（SLA）打印机制造的种植体手术导板凹面精度的影响。
使用牙支持式上颌种植体手术导板设计（对照文件）制作标本（N = 40，n = 10）。根据使用的打印方向创建四组：0度（第0组）、45度（第45组）、70度（第70组）和90度（第90组）。按照制造商推荐的方案，使用SLA打印机（Form 3B +）和生物相容性牙科树脂（手术导板树脂V1）制作标本。根据储存条件，每组再分为2个亚组：光照（L亚组）和黑暗（D亚组）环境。在第0、1、7和14天，使用台式扫描仪（Medit T710）对每个标本进行数字化处理。使用计量程序（Geomagic Control X）的最佳拟合技术将对照文件与每个数字化标本进行叠加。使用均方根（RMS）误差计算对照文件与标本文件之间的差异。采用三因素方差分析和两两比较的Tukey检验分析准确性。使用Levene检验评估精度（α = 0.05）。
在测试的组之间发现了显著的准确性差异（P <.001），但在亚组之间（P =.100）和分析的储存时间之间（P =.609）未发现显著差异。此外，Tukey检验显示第0组与第45组之间（P <.001）、第0组与第90组之间（P <.001）、第45组与第70组之间（P <.001）以及第70组与第90组之间（P <.001）的RMS误差平均值存在显著差异。Levene检验显示在测试的组之间存在显著的标准差差异（P <.05）。
使用测试的打印机和材料制造的种植体手术导板凹面的准确性和精度受打印方向的影响。然而，14天内的储存条件并未影响标本的凹面精度。
