# Additive Manufacturing in Dentistry: A Comparative Study of Polymeric Surgical Guide Fabrication

## TL;DR

This paper compares three 3D printing technologies for making dental surgical guides, focusing on accuracy, cost, and efficiency.

## Contribution

The study evaluates Material Extrusion as a practical alternative to Vat Photopolymerization for dental surgical guide fabrication.

## Key findings

- VPP and MEX provide sufficient dimensional accuracy for clinical use, while PBF does not.
- VPP is most efficient for multiple guide sets, while MEX is better for single on-demand sets.
- MEX offers faster processing and lower material costs for single-set dental guide fabrication.

## Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM), or 3D printing, has revolutionized surgical guide fabrication in dentistry by enabling the creation of complex, customized parts. This study aims to evaluate and compare three predominant AM technologies for polymers—Material Extrusion (MEX), Vat Photopolymerization (VPP), and Powder Bed Fusion (PBF)—for producing surgical guides, focusing on desktop-level equipment. The analysis centers on key criteria: dimensional accuracy, manufacturing time, process complexity, and cost, both for single-set and multiple-set productions. The results reveal that while VPP and MEX technologies offer sufficient dimensional accuracy for clinical use, PBF technology falls short in this regard. In terms of cost and time, VPP proves to be the most efficient technology for manufacturing multiple sets of guides, a common scenario in dental clinics. However, MEX technology demonstrates its competitiveness, particularly in single-set, on-demand fabrication due to its fast-processing time and the potential for lower material costs with proper material selection. The study concludes that while VPP has been the traditional choice, advancements have made MEX a viable and practical option for a rapid and easy integration into smaller dental clinics.