Search

Computer-guided dynamic navigation systems have elevated dental implant surgery into a more patient-friendly and efficient procedure. However, commercially available systems use displays as an output for guidance. This implies that surgeons have to take their eyes off the surgery site frequently in order to accurately adjust surgical instruments. The solution for such an issue is to use augmented reality (AR) head-mounted devices to showcase all necessary guiding instructions without any distractions. In this work, the implementation of augmented reality in dental surgery using the HoloLens 2 AR headset for the assessment of accuracy is described. The experiments were performed in vitro with two implementation steps, evaluating calibration and perspective of the virtual dental model alignment accuracies using a newly created marker. The calibration results showed overall accuracy and precision surpassing the 1 mm threshold in distance-related measurements. Dependency on the side on which the marker was observed and the movement of the user’s head were considered to be the most influential factors regarding the perspective of the virtual dental model alignment accuracy estimate.

A 3D printing fused filament fabrication (FFF) approach has been implemented for the creation of microstructures having an internal 3D microstructure geometry. These objects were produced without any sacrificial structures or additional support materials, just by precisely tuning the nozzle heating, fan cooling and translation velocity parameters. The manufactured microporous structures out of polylactic acid (PLA) had fully controllable porosity (20%–60%) and consisted of desired volume pores (~0.056 μm3). The prepared scaffolds showed biocompatibility and were suitable for the primary stem cell growth. In addition, direct laser writing (DLW) ablation was employed to modify the surfaces of the PLA structures, drill holes, as well as shape the outer geometries of the created objects. The proposed combination of FFF printing with DLW offers successful fabrication of 3D microporous structures with functionalization capabilities, such as the modification of surfaces, the generation of grooves and microholes and cutting out precisely shaped structures (micro-arrows, micro-gears). The produced structures could serve as biomedical templates for cell culturing, as well as biodegradable implants for tissue engineering. The additional micro-architecture is important in connection with the cell types used for the intention of cell growing. Moreover, we show that surface roughness can be modified at the nanoscale by immersion into an acetone bath, thus increasing the hydrophilicity. The approach is not limited to biomedical applications, it could be employed for the manufacturing of bioresorbable 3D microfluidic and micromechanic structures.

Abstract Background The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. Results With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. Conclusions Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.