Accuracy of Implant Analogs in 3D Printed Resin Models

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2021-01, Vol.30 (1), p.57-64
• Main Authors: Maria, Rahmat, Tan, Ming Yi, Wong, Keng Mun, Lee, Bruce Chi Hong, Chia, Vanessa Ai Ping, Tan, Keson Beng Choon
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D printing; Accuracy; additive manufacturing; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Models; Dentistry; digital implant analogs; Jaw; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13217

Purpose To study the effect of implant analog system, print orientation, and analog holder radial offset on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in 3D printed resin models. Materials and Methods A sectional master model simulating a 2‐implant, 3‐unit fixed prosthesis in a partially edentulous jaw was fabricated. Three implant analog systems for 3D printed resin models—Straumann (ST), Core3DCentres (CD) and Medentika (MD)—were tested. The corresponding scan bodies were secured onto the implants and scanned using an intraoral scanner. Models were obtained with a Digital Light Processing printer. Each implant analog system had 2 print orientations (transverse [X] and perpendicular [Y] to the printer door) and 2 analog holder radial offsets (0.04 mm and 0.06 mm), for a total of 60 models. The physical positions of the implants in the master model and the analogs in the printed resin models were directly measured with a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D accuracy of the analogs in the printed models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyse data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). Results Mean ΔR for ST (–155.7 ± 60.6 µm), CD (124.9 ± 65.0 µm) and MD (–92.9 ± 48.0 µm) were significantly different (p < 0.01). Mean Absdθ was not significantly different between ST (0.57 ± 0.48°) and CD (0.41 ± 0.27°), but both were significantly different from MD (2.11 ± 1.14°) (p < 0.01). Print orientation had a significant effect on ΔR only but no discernible trend could be found. Analog holder radial offset had no significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. Conclusions Implant analog system had a significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. Compared to the master model, CD produced greater mean interanalog distances, while ST and MD produced smaller mean interanalog distances. MD exhibited the greatest mean angular distortion which was significantly greater than ST and CD.