Accuracy of desktop versus professional 3D printers for maxillofacial model production. A systematic review and meta-analysis. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Xiaotong; Shujaat, Sohaib; Shaheen, Eman; Jacobs, Reinhilde
• Is Part Of: Journal of dentistry. Volume 112(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Printing, three-dimensional -- Computer-aided design -- Dimensional measurement accuracy -- Tomography; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentisterie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103741
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-5712

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The present review systematically analyzed the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) maxillofacial skeletal models generated from desktop and professional 3D printers. Data/sources: Electronic literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to September 2020. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Study selection/results: The search strategy retrieved 5680 articles. Following removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening and full-text reading, 20 publications were eligible to be included in the review which focused towards the accuracy of skeletal models generated from either desktop or professional printer. Both types of printers were defined based on their cost, size and layer thickness, where desktop printers cost between $1500–$7000, have a build size of 10×10×10 inches or less and a minimum layer thickness of 100 µm. Whereas, the professional printers cost was between $20, 000- $200, 000 with a build size of 12×12×12 inches or more and a layer thickness of as less as 3 µm. The risk of bias was found to be low to moderate. Meta-analysis results indicated no significant absolute mean difference (AMD) ( p = 0.9487) between desktop (0.12 mm, 95% CI: 0.00–0.27 mm) and professional printers (0.10 mm, 95% CI: 0.04–0.16 mm). Amongst the printing technology, material jetting (0.09 mm, 95% CI: 0.00–0.17 mm) and selective laser sintering (0.09 mm, 95% CI: 0.00–0.26 mm) offered the lowest AMD and the highest difference was observed with the fused deposition modeling (0.22 mm, 95% CI: 0.00–0.53 mm). Conclusions: The maxillofacial skeletal models generated from desktop printers offered comparable accuracy to that acquired with professional printers. Clinical significance: The desktop 3D printers may be a viable option to print maxillofacial skeletal models for surgical planning, simulation, guide manufacturing and education purposes.