While the number of coronavirus cases from 2019 continues to grow, hospitals are reporting shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers. Furthermore, PPE for the eyes and mouth, such as face shields, allow for additional protection when working with aerosols. 3-D printing enables the easy and rapid production of lightweight plastic frameworks based on open-source data. The practicality and clinical suitability of four face shields printed using a fused deposition modeling printer were examined. The weight, printing time, and required tools for assembly were evaluated. To assess the clinical suitability, each face shield was worn for one hour by 10 clinicians and rated using a visual analogue scale. The filament weight (21–42 g) and printing time (1:40–3:17 h) differed significantly between the four frames. Likewise, the fit, wearing comfort, space for additional PPE, and protection varied between the designs. For clinical suitability, a chosen design should allow sufficient space for goggles and N95 respirators as well as maximum coverage of the facial area. Consequently, two datasets are recommended. For the final selection of the ideal dataset to be used for printing, scalability and economic efficiency need to be carefully balanced with an acceptable degree of protection.

The purpose of the study was to compare conventional to digital workflows of occlusal splint production regarding time efficiency, overall fit, and wear. Fifteen Michigan splints were fabricated with a conventional and digital method. The duration for the dentist’s and the dental technician’s workload was recorded. Subsequently, the overall fit was examined with a four-level score (1–4). Paired t-tests were used to compare the time results for the conventional and digital workflows and the sign test to compare the overall fit. The mean time (16 min 58 s) for computerized optical impressions was longer than for conventional impressions (6 min 59 s; p = 0.0001). However, the dental technician needed significantly less mean time for the digital splint production (47 min 52 s) than for the conventional (163 min 32 s; p = 0.001). The overall fit of the digitally-fabricated splints was significantly better compared to the conventionally-fabricated splints (p = 0.002). There was no impact of the different materials used in the conventional and digital workflow on the wear (p = 0.26). The results suggest that the digital workflow for the production of occlusal splints is more time efficient and leads to a better fit than the conventional workflow.