Cast or impression digitization more accurate than intraoral scanning for complete denture fabrication

Results

A total of 20 participants were included. Satisfaction had no statistically significant difference within or among the groups (p < 0.105). Within-group comparison between the two arches showed no statistical significance for the clinical outcome except for a significantly higher maxillary AMI score (p = 0.01, r = −0.40 with medium effect size). For among group's comparison; AMI had a significantly lower score than CC for the maxillary and mandibular arches (p = 0.01, r = −0.40, medium effect size, and p = 0.003, r = −0.47, medium effect size), and significantly lower score than the mandibular AMH (p = 0.03, r = −0.47, medium effect size), with significantly lower quality in teeth arrangement and retention domains for the AMI, and teeth arrangement for the AMH, in comparison with CC.

Conclusions

Patient satisfaction with both types of additively manufactured dentures is comparable to conventional dentures. The comparable overall clinical outcomes between hybrid and conventional dentures indicate that additive manufacturing is an acceptable clinical substitute for the conventional methods. However, additively manufactured dentures made with intraoral scanning have lower clinical quality and retention than hybrid and conventional dentures, particularly for the mandibular arch. Teeth arrangement of both additively manufactured dentures is clinically inferior to the conventional denture.

Reference:

Al-Kaff, FT, Al Hamad, KQ. Additively manufactured CAD-CAM complete dentures with intraoral scanning and cast digitization: A controlled clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2023; 1– 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13704

Keywords:

Cast, impression, digitization, more, accurate, intraoral, scanning, complete, denture, fabrication, Al-Kaff, FT, Al Hamad, KQ, Journal Of Prosthodontics