Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Quality and haptic feedback of three-dimensionally printed models for simulating dental implant surgery
Xiaotong Wang1, Sohaib Shujaat2, Eman Shaheen3
1Doctoral Candidate, OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Clinical Surgeon, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Statement Of Problem:
A model offering anatomic replication and haptic feedback similar to that of real bone is essential for hands-on surgical dental implant training. Patient-specific skeletal models can be produced with 3-dimensional (3D) printing, but whether these models can offer optimal haptic feedback for simulating implant surgery is unknown.
Purpose:
The purpose of this trial was to compare the haptic feedback of different 3D printed models for simulating dental implant surgery.
Material And Methods:
A cone beam computed tomography image of a 60-year-old man with a partially edentulous mandible was manipulated to segment the mandible and isolated from the rest of the scan. Three-dimensional models were printed with 6 different printers and materials: material jetting-based printer (MJ, acrylic-based resin); digital light processing-based printer (DLP, acrylic-based resin); fused filament fabrication-based printer (FFF1, polycarbonate filament; FFF2, polylactic acid filament); stereolithography-based printer (SLA, acrylic-based resin); and selective laser sintering-based printer (SLS, polyamide filament). Five experienced maxillofacial surgeons performed a simulated implant surgery on the models. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was established to assess the haptic feedback. The Friedman test and cumulative logit models were applied to evaluate differences among the models (α=.05).
Results:
The median score for drilling perception and implant insertion was highest for the MJ-based model and lowest for the SLS-based model. In relation to the drill chips, a median score of ≥3 was observed for all models. The score for corticotrabecular transition was highest for the MJ-based model and lowest for the FFF2-based model. Overall, the MJ-based model offered the highest score compared with the other models.
Conclusions:
The 3D printed model with MJ technology and acrylic-based resin provided the best haptic feedback for performing implant surgery. However, none of the models were able to completely replicate the haptic perception of real bone.
