Influence of 3D-printing method, resin material, and sterilization on the accuracy of virtually designed surgical implant guides
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 17, 2025
Designing CAD/CAM Surgical Guides for Maxillary Reconstruction Using an In-house Approach
Published on: August 24, 2018
Andreas Keßler1, Maximilian Dosch2, Marcel Reymus1
1Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Statement Of Problem:
Three-dimensional printing has introduced new manufacturing methods. However, information on the influence of the specific printing technology, material, sterilization, and the comparison between printing and milling on the accuracy of surgical guides is lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of the manufacturing method (printing and milling), printing technology stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP), material, and sterilization on the accuracy of digitally designed surgical implant guides.
Material And Methods:
Resin patient replicas with a single edentulous space were used to place 132 implants with digitally designed surgical guides. The accuracy of postoperative implant position was analyzed for the manufacturing method (printing and milling), resin materials, and preoperative autoclaving. To determine 3D accuracy, angular displacement, mean horizontal crestal, apical displacement, and the linear vertical displacement at the apex were calculated separately for each group (n=12). In addition, the surgical guides were qualitatively analyzed by using field emission scanning electron micrograph.
Results:
The postoperative angular deviation ranged from 0.76 ±0.52 degrees (Rapidshape D20II with NextDent SG) to 2.43 ±0.64 degrees (Form2 with NextDent SG) (P<.001). Linear horizontal displacement at the crest was smallest for Rapidshape D20II with 3Delta Guide (0.27 ±0.08 mm) and highest for Form2 with NextDent SG (0.54 ±0.10 mm) (P<.001). Linear horizontal displacement at the apex ranged from 0.36 ±0.10 mm (SolFlex 350 with V-Print SG) to 0.89 ±0.32 mm (Form2 with NextDent SG) (P<.001). Considering the vertical position displacement was no more than 0.43 ±0.07 mm (Form2 with NextDent SG) short of the apex, none of the implant tips were displaced apically. Preoperative autoclaving differentially impaired the accuracy of surgical guides.
Conclusions:
The specific manufacturing technique, the 3D printing device, the resin material, and the application of preoperative sterilization all affected the accuracy of the postoperative implant position. Irrespective of the manufacturing method, all implants were placed within the commonly accepted safety distance.
