Accuracy of 3D Printing in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Anjana Rajagopalan, Sanjeev Verma, Vinay Kumar, RajKumar Verma, S. Singh
{"title":"Accuracy of 3D Printing in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Anjana Rajagopalan, Sanjeev Verma, Vinay Kumar, RajKumar Verma, S. Singh","doi":"10.1177/03015742241253947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To assess and compare the accuracy of 3D-printed digital models, orthognathic surgical splints, retainers or aligners, and implant surgical guides printed using various 3D printing technologies. The search comprised prospective and retrospective studies related to the accuracy of 3D-printed models, splints, implant surgical guides, and retainers/aligners in patients undergoing orthodontic and orthognathic surgical procedures. The outcomes were assessed in terms of linear measurements, degree of fit, and positional deviations in comparison to conventional plaster models and surgical acrylic splints. The methodologic quality of the articles and the level of evidence were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the accuracy of models printed by different technologies to plaster models using the random-effects model. Twenty-one retrospective studies were included. Quality assessment of all included articles showed moderate risk of bias and no article was excluded. The systematic review showed that there were no significant differences between printed surgical splints, retainers/aligners compared, and the control group. Meta-analysis of six eligible studies showed that printed models had a general trend toward overestimation of linear measurements (mean difference = 0.22 mm; 95% confidence interval = – 0.09 to 0.36 mm, I 2 = 85%). Measurements made on digital light processing-printed models were significantly different than those made on plaster models. The mean difference of 0.22 mm in linear measurements made on 3D-printed models and plaster models was clinically acceptable. Among the various printing technologies, PolyJet and fused deposition modeling-printed models showed higher accuracy. The printed splints and retainers/aligners were as accurate and reliable as their respective gold standards. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to high level of heterogeneity. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020175511","PeriodicalId":31847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society","volume":" 63","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03015742241253947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To assess and compare the accuracy of 3D-printed digital models, orthognathic surgical splints, retainers or aligners, and implant surgical guides printed using various 3D printing technologies. The search comprised prospective and retrospective studies related to the accuracy of 3D-printed models, splints, implant surgical guides, and retainers/aligners in patients undergoing orthodontic and orthognathic surgical procedures. The outcomes were assessed in terms of linear measurements, degree of fit, and positional deviations in comparison to conventional plaster models and surgical acrylic splints. The methodologic quality of the articles and the level of evidence were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the accuracy of models printed by different technologies to plaster models using the random-effects model. Twenty-one retrospective studies were included. Quality assessment of all included articles showed moderate risk of bias and no article was excluded. The systematic review showed that there were no significant differences between printed surgical splints, retainers/aligners compared, and the control group. Meta-analysis of six eligible studies showed that printed models had a general trend toward overestimation of linear measurements (mean difference = 0.22 mm; 95% confidence interval = – 0.09 to 0.36 mm, I 2 = 85%). Measurements made on digital light processing-printed models were significantly different than those made on plaster models. The mean difference of 0.22 mm in linear measurements made on 3D-printed models and plaster models was clinically acceptable. Among the various printing technologies, PolyJet and fused deposition modeling-printed models showed higher accuracy. The printed splints and retainers/aligners were as accurate and reliable as their respective gold standards. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to high level of heterogeneity. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020175511
三维打印在牙齿矫正中的准确性:系统回顾与元分析
评估和比较使用各种三维打印技术打印的三维打印数字模型、正颌外科夹板、保持器或矫正器以及种植手术导板的准确性。搜索内容包括与接受正畸和正颌外科手术的患者使用的 3D 打印模型、夹板、植入手术导板和保持器/对准器的准确性相关的前瞻性和回顾性研究。与传统的石膏模型和手术用丙烯酸夹板相比,这些结果在线性测量、密合度和位置偏差方面进行了评估。采用 QUADAS-2 工具对文章的方法学质量和证据水平进行了评估。采用随机效应模型对不同技术打印的模型与石膏模型的准确性进行了荟萃分析比较。共纳入 21 项回顾性研究。对所有纳入文章的质量评估显示存在中度偏倚风险,没有文章被排除在外。系统综述显示,印制的手术夹板、保持器/矫治器与对照组相比没有显著差异。对六项符合条件的研究进行的元分析表明,印刷模型的线性测量值总体上呈高估趋势(平均差异 = 0.22 毫米;95% 置信区间 = - 0.09 至 0.36 毫米,I 2 = 85%)。数字光处理打印模型的测量结果与石膏模型的测量结果有显著差异。三维打印模型与石膏模型的线性测量值平均相差 0.22 毫米,这在临床上是可以接受的。在各种打印技术中,PolyJet 和熔融沉积模型打印的模型精度更高。打印出的夹板和保持器/矫治器与各自的黄金标准一样准确可靠。由于异质性较高,在解释研究结果时应谨慎。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42020175511
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信