Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Surgical Guide
TL;DR
To compare the accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with two different 3D printers, two resins, two different occlusal designs, and interactions of these factors were used,criptive statistics and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted.
Abstract
To compare the accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with two different 3D printers, two resins, two different occlusal designs (OS: original shape, and GS: groove sealing), and interactions of these factors were used. Forty surgical guides were printed on a digital light processing (DLP) printer and a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) printer, with two resin types (SG guide and V-guide) and two occlusal designs. The region where the implant was planned was digitally removed from the cast, allowing passive positioning of the implant through the guide. A scan body was inserted in the implant, and the cast was scanned with an intraoral scanner. The planned implant compared with the actual implant position. Six measurements representing the accuracy of implant placement: (depth, angular, global apical, horizontal apical, global coronal, and horizontal coronal) deviations. Descriptive statistics and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. Printer type had a statistically significant multivariate effect (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.015, p< 0.001, Partial η² = 0.985). The resin type had no multivariate effect on the combined dependent variables, as indicated by Wilks’ Λ = 0.727, p = 0.161. Occlusal shape showed a significant multivariate effect (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.015, p<0.001). The univariate tests revealed that printer type and the shape of the occlusal surface had a statistically significant effect on all six deviation parameters (p < 0.001 for all); however, resin type had a significant effect only on horizontal coronal deviation (p = 0.018). The multivariate analysis using Wilks’ Lambda revealed a significant interaction effect between printer and resin (Wilks’ Λ = 0.593, F (6,27) = 3.094, p = 0.019, Partial η² = 0.407), A significant interaction was also observed between printer and occlusal design (Wilks’ Λ = 0.445, F (6,27) = 5.606, p = 0.001, Partial η² = 0.555) and between printer, resin, and occlusal surface (Wilks’ Λ = 0.414, F (6,27) = 6.380, p < 0.001, Partial η² = 0.586). The DLP printer group and groove sealing group were more accurate than the LCD printer, and occlusal surface group. The accuracy of both SG and V-guide resins was the same.