See the published version of this preprint at BMC Oral Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reproducibility and precision of two types of surgical guides, obtained by using 3D printing and milling methods. Methods: A virtual model was developed, which allowed the virtual design of surgical guide project that were milled (n = 10) or 3D printing (n = 10). Surgical guides were digitally oriented and overlapped on the virtual model that had generated them. For milling guides, it was used the Sirona Dentsply system, while 3D printing guides were produced at the Perfactory P4K Life Series, the EnvisionTEC's E-Guide Tint. In this way, average mismatches from the master model were determined. Moreover, coefficients of variation, root mean square deviations, and mismatches during an overlap were evaluated after obtaining individual misalignments for each guide, in order to verify the reproducibility of the guides and the precision of the methods for obtaining the guides Results: The evaluations showed that both groups presented the same degree of mismatch during overlap, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, the intragroup evaluation for misalignment, 3D printing surgical guides had a higher coefficient of variation than the milled guides, since a statistically significant difference was observed between groups in the RMS of the guide from the master model. Conclusions: Milling of the guides resulted in smaller misalignments from the master model.
Keywords
Surgical guide; Milling surgical guide; 3D printing surgical guide; Virtual guided surgery; CAD / CAM.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
Version 2
Posted 27 Nov, 2019
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 22 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 07 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 28 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 25 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 24 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 24 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 23 Sep, 2019
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 23 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 18 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 18 Sep, 2019
First submitted
On 17 Sep, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Oral Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
Version 2
Posted 27 Nov, 2019
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 22 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 07 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 28 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 25 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 24 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 24 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 23 Sep, 2019
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 23 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 18 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 18 Sep, 2019
First submitted
On 17 Sep, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reproducibility and precision of two types of surgical guides, obtained by using 3D printing and milling methods. Methods: A virtual model was developed, which allowed the virtual design of surgical guide project that were milled (n = 10) or 3D printing (n = 10). Surgical guides were digitally oriented and overlapped on the virtual model that had generated them. For milling guides, it was used the Sirona Dentsply system, while 3D printing guides were produced at the Perfactory P4K Life Series, the EnvisionTEC's E-Guide Tint. In this way, average mismatches from the master model were determined. Moreover, coefficients of variation, root mean square deviations, and mismatches during an overlap were evaluated after obtaining individual misalignments for each guide, in order to verify the reproducibility of the guides and the precision of the methods for obtaining the guides Results: The evaluations showed that both groups presented the same degree of mismatch during overlap, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, the intragroup evaluation for misalignment, 3D printing surgical guides had a higher coefficient of variation than the milled guides, since a statistically significant difference was observed between groups in the RMS of the guide from the master model. Conclusions: Milling of the guides resulted in smaller misalignments from the master model.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...