Evidence Hub

Accuracy of a chairside, fused deposition modeling three-dimensional-printed, single tooth surgical guide for implant placement: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Yao Sun, Q. Ding, Fu-Song Yuan, Lei Zhang, Yuchun Sun, Q. Xie

Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2022

28 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of chairside, fused deposition modeling (FDM) three-dimensional (3D)-printed surgical guides with that of stereolithographic guides for implant placement in single edentulous sites within a clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 28 participants with 30 single posterior edentulous sites were included. The sites were randomized into a FDM 3D-printed surgical guide group (test) or stereolithographic guide group (control) of equal size (n = 15). In both groups, digital implant planning was performed using data from cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scans. The test group's surgical guides were fabricated using a chairside, FDM 3D-printer; those in the control group were fabricated using a light-curing 3D-printer. Postoperative intraoral scans were used to obtain the 3D position of the implants. Compared to preoperative design, the angular, 3D, mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal deviations at the implant shoulder and apex were recorded.

RESULTS

The workflow for the design and chairside fabrication of implant guides was established. The mean angular deviations of the test and control group were (4.23 ± 2.38) ° and (4.13 ± 2.42) ° (p > 0.05), respectively. The respective 3D deviations at the implant shoulder were (0.70 ± 0.44) mm and (0.55 ± 0.27) mm (p > 0.05); those at the implant apex were (1.25 ± 0.61) mm and (1.11 ± 0.54) mm (p > 0.05). The mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal deviations at the implant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 28 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free