IADR Abstract Archives
CAD/CAM Milled Complete Dentures: Time and Cost Analysis
Objectives: This quality-control analysis aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the two-visit digital denture protocol in a predoctoral teaching institution in Geneva, Switzerland, by comparing the chairside time spent and the incurred costs (clinical and laboratory) for this protocol with that of a conventional protocol used in the construction of complete removable dental prostheses (CRDPs).
Methods: Twelve final-year predoctoral students with no prior denture construction experience fabricated two sets of CRDPs for each of their respective patients following first, a conventional clinical protocol (5-6 visits) and afterwards a two-visit digital denture protocol (AVADENTTM, Global Dental Science LLC, Scotsdale, AZ, USA). Six students (Group#1) fabricated only an upper CRDP, while the remaining six (Group#2) manufactured both an upper and a lower CRDP. The following outcome measures were collected: chairside time taken by each student during each patient visit, the amount of clinical materials used by each student during each patient visit (clinical materials cost), and the final dental laboratory charges (lab charges). Student’s t-test was used for statistical analyses with the level of significance set to p<0.05.
Results: The conventional CRDP protocol required longer chairside-sessions than the digital denture protocol (Group#1: p=0.0206; Group#2: p=0.0020). Clinical material costs were higher for the digital protocol (Group#1: p<0.0001; Group#2: p=0.0002). The laboratory costs were significantly higher for the conventionally fabricated CRDPs than the milled CRDPs (Group#1: p=0.0003; Group#2: p=0.0043). The overall costs (materials and laboratory costs) incurred were also higher for the conventionally fabricated CRDPs than the CAD/CAM milled CRDPs (Group#1: p=0.0032; Group#2: p=0.0080).
Conclusions: Although the present quality control survey shows that the digital denture protocol may be advantageous in terms of chairside time, laboratory and overall costs (according to costs in Switzerland); biological, technical and patient-centered outcome parameters should be investigated before putting forth a lucid recommendation.
Methods: Twelve final-year predoctoral students with no prior denture construction experience fabricated two sets of CRDPs for each of their respective patients following first, a conventional clinical protocol (5-6 visits) and afterwards a two-visit digital denture protocol (AVADENTTM, Global Dental Science LLC, Scotsdale, AZ, USA). Six students (Group#1) fabricated only an upper CRDP, while the remaining six (Group#2) manufactured both an upper and a lower CRDP. The following outcome measures were collected: chairside time taken by each student during each patient visit, the amount of clinical materials used by each student during each patient visit (clinical materials cost), and the final dental laboratory charges (lab charges). Student’s t-test was used for statistical analyses with the level of significance set to p<0.05.
Results: The conventional CRDP protocol required longer chairside-sessions than the digital denture protocol (Group#1: p=0.0206; Group#2: p=0.0020). Clinical material costs were higher for the digital protocol (Group#1: p<0.0001; Group#2: p=0.0002). The laboratory costs were significantly higher for the conventionally fabricated CRDPs than the milled CRDPs (Group#1: p=0.0003; Group#2: p=0.0043). The overall costs (materials and laboratory costs) incurred were also higher for the conventionally fabricated CRDPs than the CAD/CAM milled CRDPs (Group#1: p=0.0032; Group#2: p=0.0080).
Conclusions: Although the present quality control survey shows that the digital denture protocol may be advantageous in terms of chairside time, laboratory and overall costs (according to costs in Switzerland); biological, technical and patient-centered outcome parameters should be investigated before putting forth a lucid recommendation.