» Articles » PMID: 24438229

In-vitro Evaluation of the Tolerance of Surgical Instruments in Templates for Computer-assisted Guided Implantology Produced by 3-D Printing

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2014 Jan 21
PMID 24438229
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the tolerance of surgical instruments in surgical guides produced by 3-D printing, without metal sleeves to a surgical guide with conventional metal sleeves from two different manufacturers.

Materials And Methods: Lateral movements of drill tips caused by tolerance between the sleeve and drill key and between the drill key and the drill were recorded after application of a standardized force to the surgical instruments. Four groups were tested: Control 1 (C1): metal sleeve from commercially available surgical system 1; Test 1 (T1): 3-D-printed sleeve for surgical system 1; Control 2 (C2): metal sleeve from commercially available surgical system 2. Test 2 (T2): 3-D-printed sleeve for surgical system 2.

Results: The mean total lateral movement was 0.75 mm (0.5-1.04 mm) in the C1 group and 0.91 mm (0.54-1.34 mm) in the C2 group. The mean amount of movement from tolerance between sleeve and drill-guiding key was 0.31 mm (range 0.22-0.41 mm) in C1 and 0.42 mm (range 0.29-0.56 mm) in C2. This lateral movement was in mean reduced by 0.24 mm (32%) in T1 and by 0.39 mm (43%) in T2 group. This reduction was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The tolerance of surgical instruments and the lateral movements of the drills were significantly reduced by the use of 3-D printing with reduced sleeve diameter. This reduction could improve the overall accuracy in computer-assisted template-guided implant dentistry. The lateral movement of the drill can be further reduced by using a shorter drill and a higher drill key. This can be considered during implant planning and CAD/CAM of surgical guides.

Citing Articles

Comparative evaluation on wear resistance of metal sleeve, sleeve-free resin, and reinforced sleeve-free resin implant guide: An in vitro study.

Shruthi D, Saravanan M, Reddy V, Balasubramanium M J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024; 24(2):196-200.

PMID: 38650345 PMC: 11129808. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_535_23.


Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study.

Raabe C, Schuetz T, Chappuis V, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S, Couso-Queiruga E Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9(1):4.

PMID: 36749441 PMC: 9905371. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00470-6.


Comparison of Different Types of Static Computer-Guided Implant Surgery in Varying Bone Inclinations.

Thangwarawut P, Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Kiattavorncharoen S Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(9).

PMID: 35591339 PMC: 9103329. DOI: 10.3390/ma15093004.


Accuracy of computer-assisted, template-guided implant placement compared with conventional implant placement by hand-An in vitro study.

Schneider D, Sax C, Sancho-Puchades M, Hammerle C, Jung R Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32(9):1052-1060.

PMID: 34143522 PMC: 8456923. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13799.


Accuracy of Full-Guided and Half-Guided Surgical Templates in Anterior Immediate and Delayed Implantation: A Retrospective Study.

Chen Y, Zhang X, Wang M, Jiang Q, Mo A Materials (Basel). 2020; 14(1).

PMID: 33374727 PMC: 7793484. DOI: 10.3390/ma14010026.