Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025
Designing CAD/CAM Surgical Guides for Maxillary Reconstruction Using an In-house Approach
Published on: August 24, 2018
Accuracy of maxillofacial prototypes fabricated by different 3-dimensional printing technologies using multi-slice
Faezeh Yousefi1, Abbas Shokri2, Maryam Farhadian3
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) printed models derived from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems with different fields of view (FOVs).
Materials And Methods:
Five human dry mandibles were used to assess the accuracy of reconstructions of anatomical landmarks, bone defects, and intra-socket dimensions by 3D printers. The measurements were made on dry mandibles using a digital caliper (gold standard). The mandibles then underwent MDCT imaging. In addition, CBCT images were obtained using Cranex 3D and NewTom 3G scanners with 2 different FOVs. The images were transferred to two 3D printers, and the digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modeling (FDM) techniques were used to fabricate the 3D models, respectively. The same measurements were also made on the fabricated prototypes. The values measured on the 3D models were compared with the actual values, and the differences were analyzed using the paired t-test.
Results:
The landmarks measured on prototypes fabricated using the FDM and DLP techniques based on all 4 imaging systems showed differences from the gold standard. No significant differences were noted between the FDM and DLP techniques.
Conclusion:
The 3D printers were reliable systems for maxillofacial reconstruction. In this study, scanners with smaller voxels had the highest precision, and the DLP printer showed higher accuracy in reconstructing the maxillofacial landmarks. It seemed that 3D reconstructions of the anterior region were overestimated, while the reconstructions of intra-socket dimensions and implant holes were slightly underestimated.
