Search

Background: This in vitro study mainly aimed to compare VARO Guide® to the surgical guide fabricated by CAD/CAM (NAVI Guide®) in terms of accuracy and efficacy of the implant surgery held in the dentiform model. Methods: Twenty surgeons, 10 dentists in the beginner group and 10 dentists in the expert group, participated in the study. Each surgeon conducted fully guided surgery in dentiform models twice, once with VARO Guide® (VG surgery) and the other time with a conventional type of templates, NAVI Guide® (NG surgery). Based on the superimposition of presurgical and postsurgical STL files, the positional deviations between the virtually planned and actually placed implants and the time spent on presurgical preparation and surgical procedures were estimated and compared. Results: All dimensional deviations were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the expert and beginner groups regardless of the guide system. The total procedure time (mean (median)) of the VG surgery (26.33 (28.58) min) was significantly shorter than that of the NG surgery (378.83 (379.35) min; p < 0.05). While the time spent only for the fully guided implant surgery (from the start of the surgical guide sitting onto the dentiform model to the final installation of the implant fixture) was comparable (p > 0.05), the presurgical preparation time spent on virtual implant planning and surgical guide fabrication in the VG surgery (19.63 (20.93) min) was significantly shorter compared to the NG surgery (372.93 (372.95) min; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Regardless of experience, both VG and NG surgery showed reliable positional accuracy; however, the total procedure time and the preparation time were much shorter in the VG surgery compared to the NG surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the accuracy of various intraoral scanners (IOSs) and to investigate the existence of mutual compatibility that affects the accuracy between IOS and 3-dimensional (3D) printing using a scan quadrant model. For clinical implication, crown preparations and cavity design according to prosthetic diagnosis and treatment considerations must be acquired by a digital scanner. The selected typodont model was scanned using a reference scanner, from which reference (Ref) standard tessellation language (STL) data were created. Data obtained by scanning the typodont model with IOSs based on three different technologies were divided into three groups (CS3600, i500, and Trios3). Scanned data from the groups were divided into sub-groups of digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and stereolithography apparatus (SLA), based on which 3D printed models (3DP) were fabricated. The 3DP dental models were scanned to obtain a total of 90 3DP STL datasets. The best-fit algorithm of 3D analysis software was used for teeth and arch measurements, while trueness was analyzed by calculating the average deviation among measured values based on superimposition of Ref and IOS and 3DP data. The differences between Ref and IOS (Ref-IOS), Ref and 3DP (Ref-IOS/3DP), and IOS and 3DP data (IOS-3DP) were compared and analyzed, while accuracy within each of the three main groups was assessed. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, and repeated measures ANOVA test were used (p < 0.05). The major finding is that the mutual relationships between IOSs and 3D printers vary depending on the combination. However, i500 intraoral scanner and DLP 3D printer was the combination that showed the best trueness value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]