Table 5 Studies on accuracy of 3D printed models with multiple implants
From: The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review
| References | 3D printers tested | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression (type) | Reference cast | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revilla-Leon et al. [42] |
Projet 3510 (POLYJET) Prodways Promaker D35 (DLP) Objet Eden (POLYJET) Infinident (SLA) | Maxillary edentulous arch with 7 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | DS20 (Renishaw) | Polyether, splinted with custom tray | Type IV gypsum (Fujirock) with 7 ELOS analogues | CMM |
For the 3d printed models, more distortion was observed in the X axis DLP and POLYJET showed accuracy comparable to stone cast |
| Papaspyridakos et al. [41] | Form2 Formlabs (SLA) | Mandibular edentulous cast with 4 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A | Master stone cast | Activity 880 Smart Optics |
the printed casts had a mean SD RMS error of 59 μm The implant 3D deviations of the printed casts from complete-arch digital scans had statistically significant differences compared with those of the master cast but may still be within the acceptable range for clinical application |