Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with four different 3D printers..
METHODS: Forty-eight surgical guides (BlueSky Plan, BlueSky Bio) were produced using four different 3D printers, with strict adherence to each manufacturer\'s instructions. The printers used were three digital light processing (DLP) printers (SolFlex170, VC; Nextdent5100, ND, and D30+Rapidshape, RS) and one stereolithographic (SLA) printer (Formlabs3B+, FL). The study evaluated the trueness and precision of the overall surface, the region of interest (RoI) (occlusal and guide zone), the repeatability in several batches, and the guide hole\'s diameter and xyz axes. The printed guides were digitized and compared with the CAD design control specimen (Control X, Geomagic). Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis tests with post-hoc Mann-Whitney tests were performed (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Differences in trueness and precision were found between groups in the overall zone and RoI (p = 0.00). The ND group demonstrated the highest repeatability. Only the RS group exhibited a comparable guide hole diameter to the master specimen (5.27±2.12 mm; p = 0.104). No statistical differences were observed between groups in the x and z axes. However, in the y-axis, the VC group displayed statistically significant differences (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the DLP groups had better overall accuracy, while the SLA group had the best results in the RoI. The manufacturer\'s workflows demonstrated a high reproducibility between batches in the RoI. The RS group had values most similar values to the guide hole diameter of the master specimen, with minimal deviations in guide hole orientation.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant position can be affected by the accuracy of the 3D printed surgical guide. Therefore, it is critical to analyze the final dimensions and the direction of the guide hole using available printing technologies.
METHODS: Forty-eight surgical guides (BlueSky Plan, BlueSky Bio) were produced using four different 3D printers, with strict adherence to each manufacturer\'s instructions. The printers used were three digital light processing (DLP) printers (SolFlex170, VC; Nextdent5100, ND, and D30+Rapidshape, RS) and one stereolithographic (SLA) printer (Formlabs3B+, FL). The study evaluated the trueness and precision of the overall surface, the region of interest (RoI) (occlusal and guide zone), the repeatability in several batches, and the guide hole\'s diameter and xyz axes. The printed guides were digitized and compared with the CAD design control specimen (Control X, Geomagic). Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis tests with post-hoc Mann-Whitney tests were performed (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Differences in trueness and precision were found between groups in the overall zone and RoI (p = 0.00). The ND group demonstrated the highest repeatability. Only the RS group exhibited a comparable guide hole diameter to the master specimen (5.27±2.12 mm; p = 0.104). No statistical differences were observed between groups in the x and z axes. However, in the y-axis, the VC group displayed statistically significant differences (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the DLP groups had better overall accuracy, while the SLA group had the best results in the RoI. The manufacturer\'s workflows demonstrated a high reproducibility between batches in the RoI. The RS group had values most similar values to the guide hole diameter of the master specimen, with minimal deviations in guide hole orientation.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant position can be affected by the accuracy of the 3D printed surgical guide. Therefore, it is critical to analyze the final dimensions and the direction of the guide hole using available printing technologies.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是评估使用四种不同制造商工作流程打印的手术指南的准确性。
方法：48个手术指南（BlueSky计划，BlueSkyBio）是使用四种不同的打印机生产的，严格遵守每个制造商的说明。使用的打印机是三台DLP打印机(SolFlex170(VC)，Nextdent5100(ND),D30+Rapidshape(RS))和一台SLA打印机(Formlabs3B+(FL))。该研究评估了整个表面的真实性和准确性，感兴趣区域(RoI)(咬合和引导区)，在几个批次的重复性，和导向孔的直径和xyz轴。将印刷指南数字化，并与CAD设计对照样品(对照X，Geomagic）。进行描述性统计和Kruskal-Wallis检验以及事后Mann-Whitney检验(α=0.05)。
结果：统计学分析显示，在整体区域和RoI中，各组之间的真实性和准确性存在差异（p=0.00）。ND组表现出最高的可重复性。只有RS组表现出与主样本相当的导孔直径(5.27±2.12mm;p=0.104)。在x轴和z轴的组间没有观察到统计学差异。然而,在y轴上，VC组差异有统计学意义(p=0.01)。
结论：结果表明，DLP组具有更好的总体准确性，而SLA组在RoI中取得了最好的成绩。制造商的工作流程证明了RoI中批次之间的高再现性。RS组的值与主试样的导孔直径最相似，在导向孔方向偏差最小。
结论：种植位置是长期成功的关键因素，它可能会受到3D打印手术指南的准确性的影响。因此,使用可用的印刷技术分析导向孔的最终尺寸和方向是至关重要的。
方法：48个手术指南（BlueSky计划，BlueSkyBio）是使用四种不同的打印机生产的，严格遵守每个制造商的说明。使用的打印机是三台DLP打印机(SolFlex170(VC)，Nextdent5100(ND),D30+Rapidshape(RS))和一台SLA打印机(Formlabs3B+(FL))。该研究评估了整个表面的真实性和准确性，感兴趣区域(RoI)(咬合和引导区)，在几个批次的重复性，和导向孔的直径和xyz轴。将印刷指南数字化，并与CAD设计对照样品(对照X，Geomagic）。进行描述性统计和Kruskal-Wallis检验以及事后Mann-Whitney检验(α=0.05)。
结果：统计学分析显示，在整体区域和RoI中，各组之间的真实性和准确性存在差异（p=0.00）。ND组表现出最高的可重复性。只有RS组表现出与主样本相当的导孔直径(5.27±2.12mm;p=0.104)。在x轴和z轴的组间没有观察到统计学差异。然而,在y轴上，VC组差异有统计学意义(p=0.01)。
结论：结果表明，DLP组具有更好的总体准确性，而SLA组在RoI中取得了最好的成绩。制造商的工作流程证明了RoI中批次之间的高再现性。RS组的值与主试样的导孔直径最相似，在导向孔方向偏差最小。
结论：种植位置是长期成功的关键因素，它可能会受到3D打印手术指南的准确性的影响。因此,使用可用的印刷技术分析导向孔的最终尺寸和方向是至关重要的。
