Influence of two different printing methods on the accuracy of full-guided implant insertion - a laboratory study in undergraduate dental students.

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE BDJ Open Pub Date : 2025-01-26 DOI:10.1038/s41405-025-00295-y
Matthias C Schulz, Michael Krimmel, Christina Weismann, Pablo Kaucher-Fernandez, Bernd Lethaus, Nils Kristian Mann
{"title":"Influence of two different printing methods on the accuracy of full-guided implant insertion - a laboratory study in undergraduate dental students.","authors":"Matthias C Schulz, Michael Krimmel, Christina Weismann, Pablo Kaucher-Fernandez, Bernd Lethaus, Nils Kristian Mann","doi":"10.1038/s41405-025-00295-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of fully guided implant insertion in vitro achieved by two fabrication methods in a cohort of undergraduates. We hypothesized that both methods achieve a comparable accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surface scans and cone beam computed tomography images of 48 mandibular models were matched. For each model, two surgical guides enabling a fully guided implant insertion in the region of the first molar on the left or the right side were virtually designed. Fabrication by either Digital Light Processing (DLP) or Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) followed. Subsequently, 96 implants using the guides were inserted into the models by 48 undergraduate students. The accuracy of the implant insertion was assessed radiographically, followed by statistical analysis. Additionally, all participants completed a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The implants inserted using guides made by DLP showed a higher accuracy compared to guides made by FFF. The mean three-dimensional deviation was 1.94 ± 1.05 vs. 3.35 ± 2.03 degrees (p < 0.001). The evaluation of the questionnaires revealed mainly theoretical knowledge and a pronounced interest in implant dentistry.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The main hypothesis has to be rejected as there were statistically significant differences in accuracy. However, it is possible to teach students the principles of guided implant dentistry and the digital workflow. Furthermore, the initial and running costs for the FFF workflow are substantially lower enabling a higher practicability for undergraduate education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the lower accuracy of the templates made from FFF the method seems to be suitable for laboratory hands-on courses for undergraduates.</p>","PeriodicalId":36997,"journal":{"name":"BDJ Open","volume":"11 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BDJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-025-00295-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of fully guided implant insertion in vitro achieved by two fabrication methods in a cohort of undergraduates. We hypothesized that both methods achieve a comparable accuracy.

Methods: Surface scans and cone beam computed tomography images of 48 mandibular models were matched. For each model, two surgical guides enabling a fully guided implant insertion in the region of the first molar on the left or the right side were virtually designed. Fabrication by either Digital Light Processing (DLP) or Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) followed. Subsequently, 96 implants using the guides were inserted into the models by 48 undergraduate students. The accuracy of the implant insertion was assessed radiographically, followed by statistical analysis. Additionally, all participants completed a questionnaire.

Results: The implants inserted using guides made by DLP showed a higher accuracy compared to guides made by FFF. The mean three-dimensional deviation was 1.94 ± 1.05 vs. 3.35 ± 2.03 degrees (p < 0.001). The evaluation of the questionnaires revealed mainly theoretical knowledge and a pronounced interest in implant dentistry.

Discussion: The main hypothesis has to be rejected as there were statistically significant differences in accuracy. However, it is possible to teach students the principles of guided implant dentistry and the digital workflow. Furthermore, the initial and running costs for the FFF workflow are substantially lower enabling a higher practicability for undergraduate education.

Conclusion: Despite the lower accuracy of the templates made from FFF the method seems to be suitable for laboratory hands-on courses for undergraduates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BDJ Open
BDJ Open Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
34
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Influence of two different printing methods on the accuracy of full-guided implant insertion - a laboratory study in undergraduate dental students. Propolis mouthwashes efficacy in managing gingivitis and periodontitis: a systematic review of the latest findings. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of silver diamine fluoride versus mineral trioxide aggregate as indirect pulp capping agents in deeply carious first permanent molars a randomized clinical trial. Foundation dentists' attitudes and experiences in providing dental care for dependant older adults resident in care home settings. Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1