From: The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review
References | 3D printers tested | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression (type) | Reference cast | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Revilla-Leon et al. [42] | Projet 3510 (POLYJET) Prodways Promaker D35 (DLP) Objet Eden (POLYJET) Infinident (SLA) | Maxillary edentulous arch with 7 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | DS20 (Renishaw) | Polyether, splinted with custom tray | Type IV gypsum (Fujirock) with 7 ELOS analogues | CMM | For the 3d printed models, more distortion was observed in the X axis DLP and POLYJET showed accuracy comparable to stone cast |
Papaspyridakos et al. [41] | Form2 Formlabs (SLA) | Mandibular edentulous cast with 4 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A | Master stone cast | Activity 880 Smart Optics | the printed casts had a mean SD RMS error of 59 μm The implant 3D deviations of the printed casts from complete-arch digital scans had statistically significant differences compared with those of the master cast but may still be within the acceptable range for clinical application |