Complete Digital Workflow for Prosthesis Prototype Fabrication with Double Digital Scanning: Accuracy of Fit Assessment. Issue 1 (5th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Papaspyridakos, Panos; AlFulaij, Fahad; Bokhary, Abdullah; Sallustio, Anthony; Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 32:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 49
• Page End: 53
• Publication Date: 2022-03-05
• Subjects: 3D Printers -- 3D printed casts -- complete‐arch implant rehabilitation -- digital workflow -- digital dentistry -- digital impressions -- intraoral scanners; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13492
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a complete digital workflow protocol for fabrication of printed prosthesis prototypes for maxillary immediate loading treatment. Materials and methods: A maxillary stone cast with 4 abutment‐level implant analogs with adequate antero‐posterior spread was fabricated. This stone cast served as a reference cast and a zirconia prosthesis was also fabricated to serve as an interim prosthesis. Double digital scanning was used for digital scans of the reference cast and the interim prosthesis, respectively. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS ® 3) was used to capture the standard tessellation language (STL) files. These STL files were then imported to computer‐aided design (CAD) software (Exocad DentalCAD) and superimposed into a final design STL file that was exported to 3 different (Form 3b+, Carbon M2, Sprintray Pro95) three‐dimensional (3D) printers to produce a total of 90 printed prototypes (n = 30 from each 3D printer). Two blinded clinicians assessed the accuracy of fit of each digitally fabricated prosthesis prototype on the reference cast, utilizing the screw‐resistance test and radiographs. The Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference between the groups. Results: Out of the 90 digitally fabricated prototypes, 86 (95.6%) presented with accurate fit. The accuracy of fit ranged from 87% (26/30) for Sprintray Pro95 to 100% (30/30) for the Form 3b+ and M2 Carbon groups. Conclusions: Digitally fabricated prosthesis prototypes can be generated with a complete digital workflow leading to clinically acceptable fit, while reducing the number of appointments and treatment time. The 3D printer had an effect on the accuracy of prosthesis prototype fit.