Quality and haptic feedback of three-dimensionally printed models for simulating dental implant surgery

Statement of problem: A model offering anatomic replication and haptic feedback similar to that of real bone is essential for hands-on surgical dental implant training. Patient-specific skeletal models can be produced with 3-dimensional (3D) printing, but whether these models can offer optimal haptic feedback for simulating implant surgery is unknown.

Purpose: The purpose of this trial was to compare the haptic feedback of different 3D printed models for simulating dental implant surgery.

Material and methods: A cone beam computed tomography image of a 60-year-old man with a partially edentulous mandible was manipulated to segment the mandible and isolated from the rest of the scan. Three-dimensional models were printed with 6 different printers and materials: material jetting-based printer (MJ, acrylic-based resin); digital light processing-based printer (DLP, acrylic-based resin); fused filament fabrication-based printer (FFF1, polycarbonate filament; FFF2, polylactic acid filament); stereolithography-based printer (SLA, acrylic-based resin); and selective laser sintering-based printer (SLS, polyamide filament). Five experienced maxillofacial surgeons performed a simulated implant surgery on the models. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was established to assess the haptic feedback. The Friedman test and cumulative logit models were applied to evaluate differences among the models (α=.05).

Results: The median score for drilling perception and implant insertion was highest for the MJ-based model and lowest for the SLS-based model. In relation to the drill chips, a median score of ≥3 was observed for all models. The score for corticotrabecular transition was highest for the MJ-based model and lowest for the FFF2-based model. Overall, the MJ-based model offered the highest score compared with the other models.

Conclusions: The 3D printed model with MJ technology and acrylic-based resin provided the best haptic feedback for performing implant surgery. However, none of the models were able to completely replicate the haptic perception of real bone.