Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2020-07, Vol.29 (6), p.534-541
• Main Authors: Henprasert, Pantip, Dawson, Deborah V., El‐Kerdani, Tarek, Song, Xuan, Couso‐Queiruga, Emilio, Holloway, Julie A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D milling; 3D printing; Accuracy; accuracy of implant position; Computed tomography; Computer programs; dental implant; Dental implants; Dentistry; guided surgery; Mandible; Multivariate analysis; Surgery; surgical guide
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13161

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. Materials and Methods A partially edentulous standardized mandibular implant model with different bone densities and soft tissue was duplicated and a diagnostic wax‐up was performed for the #30 area. A reference radiographic guide was fabricated and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was made with the reference radiographic guide in place. A surgical guide was designed using BlueSky Plan 4 software and a reference implant was placed in the #30 region. The STL file of the surgical guide was exported and specimens (n = 15) were fabricated by two different techniques: additive (3D printing) and subtractive (milling). The standardized mandibular model was surface‐scanned and duplicated with printed dental model resin (n = 30). Each surgical guide was used to place an implant in thirty duplicate printed models. Differences in implant position as compared to the reference were measured from digital scans with scan bodies in place. The angular deviations, differences in depth, coronal and apical deviations were measured using GeoMagic Control X software. Results were analyzed by Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney test and PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance). Intraclass correlation was used to assess measurement reproducibility with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing as needed (α = 0.05). Results There were no significant differences in accuracy of implant placement using guides fabricated using additive vs subtractive techniques. The mean angular deviations between the reference and actual position of implant in mesio‐distal cross‐section were 0.780 ± 0.80° for printed group and 0.77 ± 0.72° for the milled group. The differences in bucco‐lingual cross‐section were 1.60 ± 1.22° in in printed group and 1.77 ± 0.76° in the milled group. The differences in depth (mm) were measured at the top of the scan body at four locations: mesial, distal, buccal and lingual. The mean differences in depth for the group that used printed surgical guides were (mesial) 0.37 ± 0.29 mm, (distal) 0.32 ± 0.23 mm, (buccal) 0.24 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.25 ± 0.17 mm. The mean differences in depth for the group that used milled surgical guides were (mesial) 0.51 ± 0.33 mm, (distal) 0.40 ± 0.32 mm, (buccal) 0.22 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.23 ± 0.12 mm in those four aspects, respectively. The mean coronal deviation showed 0.32 mm in the printed g