Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies

This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Lukas Wegmüller [verfasserIn] Florian Halbeisen [verfasserIn] Neha Sharma [verfasserIn] Sebastian Kühl [verfasserIn] Florian M. Thieringer [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Clinical Medicine - MDPI AG, 2013, 10(2021), 21, p 4894
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:10 ; year:2021 ; number:21, p 4894

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/jcm10214894

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ051475545

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ051475545
003	DE-627
005	20240412133824.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/jcm10214894 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ051475545
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Lukas Wegmüller \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.
650		4	\|a three-dimensional
650		4	\|a printing
650		4	\|a biocompatible materials
650		4	\|a computer-aided design
650		4	\|a surgical
650		4	\|a patient-specific
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Florian Halbeisen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Neha Sharma \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sebastian Kühl \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Florian M. Thieringer \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Clinical Medicine \|d MDPI AG, 2013 \|g 10(2021), 21, p 4894 \|w (DE-627)718632478 \|w (DE-600)2662592-1 \|x 20770383 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:10 \|g year:2021 \|g number:21, p 4894
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 10 \|j 2021 \|e 21, p 4894

Indexfelder

author_variant	l w lw f h fh n s ns s k sk f m t fmt
matchkey_str	article:20770383:2021----::osmrsihn3pitrfruddmlnsreynniracrcassmnsuyf
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.3390/jcm10214894 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lukas Wegmüller verfasserin aut Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs. three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Florian Halbeisen verfasserin aut Neha Sharma verfasserin aut Sebastian Kühl verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 21, p 4894 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 21, p 4894
spelling	10.3390/jcm10214894 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lukas Wegmüller verfasserin aut Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs. three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Florian Halbeisen verfasserin aut Neha Sharma verfasserin aut Sebastian Kühl verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 21, p 4894 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 21, p 4894
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/jcm10214894 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lukas Wegmüller verfasserin aut Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs. three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Florian Halbeisen verfasserin aut Neha Sharma verfasserin aut Sebastian Kühl verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 21, p 4894 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 21, p 4894
allfieldsGer	10.3390/jcm10214894 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lukas Wegmüller verfasserin aut Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs. three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Florian Halbeisen verfasserin aut Neha Sharma verfasserin aut Sebastian Kühl verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 21, p 4894 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 21, p 4894
allfieldsSound	10.3390/jcm10214894 doi (DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lukas Wegmüller verfasserin aut Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs. three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Florian Halbeisen verfasserin aut Neha Sharma verfasserin aut Sebastian Kühl verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 21, p 4894 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 21, p 4894
language	English
source	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 10(2021), 21, p 4894 volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894
sourceStr	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 10(2021), 21, p 4894 volume:10 year:2021 number:21, p 4894
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Lukas Wegmüller @@aut@@ Florian Halbeisen @@aut@@ Neha Sharma @@aut@@ Sebastian Kühl @@aut@@ Florian M. Thieringer @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	718632478
id	DOAJ051475545
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ051475545</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412133824.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm10214894</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ051475545</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lukas Wegmüller</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">three-dimensional</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">printing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">biocompatible materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">computer-aided design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">surgical</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient-specific</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian Halbeisen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Neha Sharma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sebastian Kühl</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian M. Thieringer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 21, p 4894</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:21, p 4894</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">21, p 4894</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Lukas Wegmüller
spellingShingle	Lukas Wegmüller misc three-dimensional misc printing misc biocompatible materials misc computer-aided design misc surgical misc patient-specific misc Medicine misc R Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
authorStr	Lukas Wegmüller
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)718632478
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20770383
topic_title	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific
topic	misc three-dimensional misc printing misc biocompatible materials misc computer-aided design misc surgical misc patient-specific misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc three-dimensional misc printing misc biocompatible materials misc computer-aided design misc surgical misc patient-specific misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc three-dimensional misc printing misc biocompatible materials misc computer-aided design misc surgical misc patient-specific misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	718632478
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1
title	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ051475545 (DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da
title_full	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
author_sort	Lukas Wegmüller
journal	Journal of Clinical Medicine
journalStr	Journal of Clinical Medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Lukas Wegmüller Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer
container_volume	10
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Lukas Wegmüller
doi_str_mv	10.3390/jcm10214894
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	consumer vs. high-end 3d printers for guided implant surgery—an in vitro accuracy assessment study of different 3d printing technologies
title_auth	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
abstract	This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.
abstractGer	This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.
abstract_unstemmed	This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	21, p 4894
title_short	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894 https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894 https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383
remote_bool	true
author2	Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer
author2Str	Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer
ppnlink	718632478
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/jcm10214894
up_date	2024-07-03T20:34:09.939Z
_version_	1803591457117831168
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ051475545</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412133824.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm10214894</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ051475545</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lukas Wegmüller</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i<n </i<= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i<p</i< < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">three-dimensional</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">printing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">biocompatible materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">computer-aided design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">surgical</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient-specific</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian Halbeisen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Neha Sharma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sebastian Kühl</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian M. Thieringer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 21, p 4894</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:21, p 4894</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214894</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">21, p 4894</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400215

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?