Influence of 3D Printing Technology, Resin Type, and Occlusal Design on the Accuracy of Surgical Guides

Section: Research Paper
Issue
Vol. 26 No. 2 (2026): Volume 26 Issue 2
Pages
342-362

Abstract

Aims: The present study aimed to assess the accuracy of surgical guides fabricated using two different 3D printers, two resins, and different occlusal designs (OS: original shape; GS: groove sealing).


Materials and Methods: 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 was 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.


Results: The DLP printer and GS group exhibited lower mean deviation and standard deviation across all measured parameters. 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).


Conclusion:  The DLP printer was more accurate than the LCD printer. Also, the accuracy of a surgical guide can be improved by sealing the occlusal surface grooves directly before fabricating the guide. The accuracy of both SG and V-guide resins was the same

Keywords:

DLP printer, LCD printer, Groove sealing., Deviation

References

  1. Chatzistavrianou D, Wilson PHR, Taylor P. A guide to implant dentistry. Part 2: Surgical and prosthodontic considerations. Dent Up J. 2019;46(6):514–23. doi: 10.12968/denu.2019.46.6.514
  2. Alubaidi AA, Kassab N, Mohialdeen H. Comparing between different impression materials and techniques for the accuracy of implant position transfer. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2024;24(2):380–91. doi:10.33899/rdenj.2022.136706.1177.
  3. Schünemann FH, Galárraga-Vinueza ME, Magini R, Fredel M, Silva F, Souza JCM, et al. Zirconia surface modifications for implant dentistry. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019; 98:1294–305. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.062.
  4. Abdulla MA, Hasan RH, Al-Hyani OH. Effects of restraint stress and surface treatments on the stability of titanium dental implant osseointegration in dogs: An in vivo comparative study. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2024;19(3):461–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2024.03.004.
  5. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Zohaib S, Hasan SM, Khan RS. Bisphosphonate releasing dental implant surface coatings and osseointegration: a systematic review. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2017;12(5):369–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.05.007.
  6. Patel V, Sadiq MS, Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Heboyan A. Effects of metformin on the bioactivity and osseointegration of dental implants: a systematic review. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2023;18(1):196–206. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.07.003
  7. Abdulla MA, Hasan RH, Al-Hyani OH. Impact of Er, Cr: YSGG laser, sandblast, and acid etching surface modification on surface topography of biodental titanium implants. J Lasers Med Sci. 2023;14: e38. doi:10.34172/jlms.2023.38.
  8. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(S1):4–7. Doi: 10.1111/cid.12742.
  9. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012;91(3):242–8. doi:10.1177/0022034511431252.
  10. Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone C, Guidetti F, Martuscelli R, Sbordone L. Implant angulation: 2-year retrospective analysis on the influence of dental implant angle insertion on marginal bone resorption in maxillary and mandibular osseous onlay grafts. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(4):769–79. Doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1275-5.
  11. Abduo J, Hasan RH, Lau D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in narrow ridge by novice clinicians. Eur J Dent. 2025;19(1). Doi: 10.1055/s-0045-1802949.
  12. Jasim M, Al-Khatib A, Rajion Z. Applications of 3D printing in pediatric dentistry: a literature review. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2024;24(1):142–55. Doi:10.33899/rdenj.2024.145483.1238.
  13. Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687–94. Doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y.
  14. Measar A, Al-Noori A. Three-dimensional accuracy of virtual casts obtained from intraoral scanners and scannable impression for three-unit bridge. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2023;23(1):9–24. doi: 10.33899/rdenj.2022.134547.1160.
  15. Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):3–12. Doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
  16. Measar A, Al-Noori A. A comparison between virtual models obtained by intraoral scanner and their three-dimensionally printed models. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2023;23(1):25–36. Doi: 10.33899/rdenj.2022.135226.1180
  17. Van Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21:455–8. Doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01836.x.
  18. Semary A, Kamal MH, Katamish H, Morsy TS. Accuracy of surgical guides fabricated using two different 3D printers for prosthetically driven implant surgery: an in-vitro study. J Fundam Clin Res. 2023;3(2):112–24. Doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.216009.1048.
  19. Varga JR, Endre E, et al. Guidance means accuracy: a randomized clinical trial on freehand versus guided dental implantation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(5):417–30. Doi: 10.1111/clr.13578.
  20. Keßler A, Dosch M, Reymus M, Folwaczny M. Influence of 3D-printing method, resin material, and sterilization on the accuracy of virtually designed surgical implant guides. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(2):196–204. Doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.011.
  21. Dong T, Wang X, Xia L, Yuan L, Ye N, Fang B. Accuracy of different tooth surfaces on 3D printed dental models: orthodontic perspective. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20:340. Doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01338-6.
  22. Herschdorfer L, Negreiros WM, Gallucci GO, Hamilton A. Comparison of the accuracy of implants placed with CAD-CAM surgical templates manufactured with various 3D printers: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(6):905–10. Doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.017.
  23. Morón-Conejo B, Berrendero S, Salido MP, Zarauz C, Pradíes G. Accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with four different 3D printers: a comparative in vitro study. J Dent. 2024; 148:105226. Doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105226.
  24. Lin CC, Wu CZ, Huang MS, Huang CF, Cheng HC, Wang DP. Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: a prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):980. Doi: 10.3390/jcm9040980.
  25. Vartan N, Gath L, Olmos M, Plewe K, Vogl C, Kesting MR, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional computer-aided implant surgical guides: a prospective in vivo study of the impact of template design. Dent J. 2025;13(4):150. Doi: 10.3390/jcm9040980.
  26. Tsolakis IA, Papaioannou W, Papadopoulou E, Dalampira M, Tsolakis AI. Comparison in terms of accuracy between DLP and LCD printing technology for dental model printing. Dent J. 2022;10(10):181. doi:10.3390/dj10100181.
  27. Alubaidi AA, Kassab N, Mohialdeen H. A comparative evaluation of the accuracy between the extraoral scanner (Rainbow) and intraoral scanner (Medit I500) digital impressions in vitro. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2024;24(2):373–9. doi:10.33899/rdenj.2022.136720.1178.
  28. Abduo J, Lau D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent. 2020; 6:10. Doi: 10.1186/s40729-020-0205-3.
  29. Abdallah S, Kaddah A, Elkhadem A. The accuracy of implant placement using opened versus closed sleeve computer surgical guide: a split-mouth technique. Ain Shams Dent J. 2021;22(2):112–23. doi:10.21608/asdj.2021.62098.1022.
  30. Revilla-León M, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of surgical guides printed with different 3D printing technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(1):96–102.
  31. 31. Moon W, Kim S, Lim BS, Park YS, Kim RJ, Chung SH. Dimensional accuracy evaluation of temporary dental restorations with different 3D printing systems. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(6):1487. doi:10.3390/ma14061487.
  32. Shah NP, Khanna A, Pai AR, Sheth VH, Raut SR. An evaluation of virtually planned and 3D-printed stereolithographic surgical guides from CBCT and digital scans: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(3):436–42. Doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.035.
  33. Sim MY, et al. Dimensional accuracy and surface characteristics of complete-arch cast manufactured by six 3D printers. Heliyon. 2024;10(10). Doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon. 2024.e30996.
  34. Tsolakis IA, Lyros I, Christopoulou I, Tsolakis AI, Papadopoulos MA. Comparing the accuracy of three different liquid crystal display printers for dental model printing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2024;166(1):7–14. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.03.003.
  35. Balaguer-Martí JC, Canet-López Á, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Romeo-Rubio M, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Influence of splint support on the precision of static totally guided dental implant surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023; 38:157–68. Doi: 10.11607/jomi.9796.
  36. Dabbous RHE, Sabet ME, Tarek H. Intraoral scan-based versus cast scan-based surgical guides. Ain Shams Dent J. 2020;19(3):95–104. doi:10.21608/asdj.2020.140031.
  37. Hussein WA, Katamish MAM, Taha MM. The use of stereolithographic surgical guides to compare between partial versus complete limiting designs in the posterior mandible: a randomized clinical trial and split-mouth study. Ain Shams Dent J. 2019;16(4):33–44. doi:10.21608/asdj.2019.164503.
  38. Kim JH, Pinhata-Baptista OH, Ayres AP, da Silva RLB, Lima JF, Urbano GS, No-Cortes J, Vasques MT, Cortes ARG. Accuracy Comparison among 3D-Printing Technologies to Produce Dental Models. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(17):8425. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178425.
  39. Lim JH, Bayarsaikhan E, Shin SH, Nam NE, Shim JS, Kim JE. Effects of groove sealing of the posterior occlusal surface and offset of the internal surface on the internal fit and accuracy of implant placements using 3D-printed surgical guides: an in vitro study. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(8):1236. Doi: 10.3390/polym13081236.

Authors

Israa Hasan Ismael

Master student, Nineveh Health Directorate, Nineveh, Iraq

Radhwan H Hasan

Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

Jaafar Abduo

Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Identifiers

DOI: 10.33899/9x16ar08

Download this PDF file
##submission.supplementaryFiles##
pdf

Statistics

Copyright and Licensing
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.