Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2026
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Clinical outcomes of anterior diastema closures with resin injection technique using a 3D printed template: A
Yusen Shui1, Jiacheng Wu1, Zhicheng Yin1
1Doctoral student, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
Evidence on the clinical outcomes and accuracy of a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed template for the resin injection technique is limited.
Purpose:
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a 3D printed template-guided composite resin injection technique for anterior diastema closure and compare the accuracy of two 3D printed templates: rigid resin templates with flexible silicone index (RTFS) and separate rigid templates (SRT).
Material And Methods:
A total of 32 participants with 54 diastemas received 84 flowable composite resin restorations using either RTFS (n=42) or SRT (n=42). Digital wax patterns were derived from preoperative intraoral scans (Scan1). Postinjection (Scan2) and postpolishing (Scan3) scans were superimposed to calculate root mean square (RMS) deviations (Deviation1: Digital wax patterns-Scan2; Deviation2: Digital wax patterns-Scan3). Clinical performance, including esthetics, function, and biological properties, at 12-month follow-up was assessed using International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The root mean square (RMS) data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene test, 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test (α=.05). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the effect of templates on esthetic, functional, and biological properties (α=.05).
Results:
RTFS and SRT both showed better accuracy after immediate injection with mean ±standard deviation Deviation1=0.11 ±0.02 mm and 0.11 ±0.03 mm, respectively, while SRT yielded significantly higher Deviation2 (0.15 ±0.03 mm) than that of RTFS (0.12 ±0.02 mm) (P<.001) after polishing. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding esthetic, functional and biological properties (all P>.05). All restorations scored within 3, with over 90% scoring 1 for all properties.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of this 12-month study, both 3D printed templates demonstrated comparable clinical performance for anterior diastema closure, and the RTFS-guided resin injection technique had better accuracy than SRT after polishing.
