## 1 Introduction  
In dentistry, digital workflow is becoming a prevalent approach for fabricating implant surgical guides [1]. This workflow involves using three-dimensionally printed technology (3 DP) for various uses in addition to implant surgical guides, including fixed and removable prostheses and orthodontic aligners [2]. Three-dimensionally printed has several advantages when compared to the subtractive method (milled technology) with regard to sustainability and resource consumption [3]. The three common systems of additive technology employed in dentistry are digital light processing (DLP), stereolithography apparatus (SLA) [4], and fused deposition modelling (FDP) [5]. Implant surgical guides can be fabricated through either subtractive (milling) or additive manufacturing (printing). [PERSON] and [PERSON] [6] compared milled implant surgical guides with commercial and bench-printed guides. Milled surgical guides proved to be significantly more accurate with the lowest error of 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.03 mm versus 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.06 mm for bench-printed guides (\(p\) = 0.04). Despite these findings, the use of 3D printing technology for SLA and DLP remains the most common method for the in-office production of implant surgical guides [7] due to its improved affordability and accessibility. The DLP system employs a projector light guided by micromirrors to simultaneously polymerise the monomer in all three axes, thus reducing build time [8; 9]. Nonetheless, there are several factors that influence the accuracy of DLP printing of surgical guides that warrant further investigation, especially with regard to full-arch implant surgical guides, as most literature investigates partially edentulous arches. A systematic review comparing the accuracy of partially edentulous arches to fully edentulous arches showed significant differences and suggested a 2 mm safety margin should be applied to ensure that the static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) approach is within the clinically acceptable range of results [10]. However, [PERSON] et al. [11] found that the size of the implant surgical guide can affect trueness and precision. The larger extent guides with fewer supporting teeth were less accurate and had root mean square (RMS) values of 93.12 \(\pm\) 13.22 \(\upmu\)m, compared to 67.75 \(\pm\) 10.63 \(\upmu\)m for smaller extent guides with more supporting teeth, irrespective of the printing technology used. Furthermore, the DLP system has been used in conjunction with the s-CAIS approach to fabricate full-arch implant surgical guides [12]. The s-CAIS approach proves advantageous in terms of accuracy and accessibility for clinicians as it offers a more affordable and convenient alternative to a traditional workflow [12] and a dynamic computer-assisted guidance approach [13]. It was also noted that by using a navigation-guided procedure such as s-CAIS or dynamic computer-assisted guidance for implant placement, an error of \(<\)1 mm of mean linear deviation and angular deviation of \(<\)4\({}^{\circ}\) is achievable [14]. Regarding the accuracy of s-CAIS, a horizontal error of approximately 1 mm at the entry point and 1.6 mm at the apex, 0.5 mm in height, and with a 5-6\({}^{\circ}\) axis is evident in the literature [15; 16]. However, it is evident that 3 DP surgical guides can significantly aid in preventing errors associated with manufacturing factors and virtual plans and aid in overall implant positioning [7] compared to conventional implant positioning methods. Specifically, s-CAIS allows for the option of the immediate loading of implants [12; 13] and aids in reducing patient discomfort, chair time, and iatrogenic damage to anatomic structures such as the inferior alveolar nerve, thus resulting in fewer surgical complications. Therefore, this is leading to a shift away from conventional implant positioning techniques to one using 3 DP surgical guides to improve patient outcomes [7].