الفهرس 
Introduction And Review Of LiteratureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the computer aided stereolithographic handpiece guided surgical stent in comparison to the ordinary computer aided stereolithographic surgical stent both in-vivo and in-vitro using CBCT, CAM software and additive manufacturing in the form of 3D printing.
Nine patients either totally or partially edentulous were included in the current study received 41 dental implants through the use of standard or handpiece supported surgical guide.
The handpiece was scanned and the handpiece guiding apparatus was designed using 3D Max then the guiding apparatus was sent for 3D printing
The patients and their dental casts or denture were scanned using CBCT machine in a dual scan technique, following the DICOM files were sent for specialised softwares.
Simplant pro 11 and Mimics 15 softwares were used to plan the implants in the patients’ jaws and to design the surgical guides which were either tooth - mucosa supported for partially edentulous or bone supported for completely edentulous patients then the surgical guides were sent for 3D printing.
Under local anaesthesia, the patients received their dental implants using the surgical guide either standard or handpiece supported and after a healing period a postoperative CBCT was done for every patient in the study.
The patients’ jaws were extracted from the software project and sent for 3D printing and the same surgery was repeated on the printed jaws that resemble patients’ jaws using the same surgical guide used in the patient mouth, then another CBCT was done for the printed jaw.
Postoperative CBCT images was superimposed over preoperative CBCT images for the clinical and In-vitro study to determine the accuracy of the implant placement and amount of error of deviation.
The results of the study showed that the standard surgical guide was more accurate than the handpiece supported surgical guide and the in-vivo study was more accurate than the in-vitro study.
The clinical study results for both groups are considered of moderate deviation according to Valente classification.