IADR Abstract Archives
3D Accuracy Comparison Between Digitally Fabricated and Traditionally Fabricated Dentures
Objectives: This study compared the accuracy of traditionally fabricated dentures to digitally fabricated dentures, against a baseline model.
Methods: A single maxillary edentulous model was obtained to serve as the baseline case (Nissin Dental Soft Gingiva Edentulous Dentoform). A total of 16 impressions were taken (n=8) and separated into two groups, Group 1: digital denture fabrication and Group 2: traditional denture fabrication. All 16 impressions were taken following Heraeus Kulzer’s Pala® Digital Denture recommendations using Flexitime® Fast & Scan heavy and light body PVS materials (Heraus Kulzer). The impressions from Group 2 were poured up with Microstone (Golden, ISO Type 3) to obtain 8 casts. The baseline case model, the 8 casts from Group 2, and the 8 impressions from Group 1 were all then scanned with a 3D digital scanner (Evolve, Open Technology modified by Evolution Dental Lab) to obtain 3D STL (Steriolithography) file renderings. Each individual cast and impression 3D rendering was then directly compared using Geomagic Wrap® Software, back to the baseline case 3D rendering by superimposing all tissue surfaces and evaluating for overall accuracy. The data was analyzed using Independent Samples t-test and Mann Whitney test. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistical significant.
Results: See table 1. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups in Max Distance negative using Mann Whitney or Average Distance negative using Independent samples t-test. Statistically significant differences were seen with RMS Estimate (Group 1: 0.1411 ± 0.037, Group 2: 0.604 ± 0.230), Max Distance positive, and Average Distance negative using Independent sample t-tests (P <0.05.)
Conclusions: In accuracy comparison of traditional denture fabrication vs. digital denture fabrication, according to RMS estimate, a statistically significant difference existed favoring the accuracy of digital denture fabrication.
Methods: A single maxillary edentulous model was obtained to serve as the baseline case (Nissin Dental Soft Gingiva Edentulous Dentoform). A total of 16 impressions were taken (n=8) and separated into two groups, Group 1: digital denture fabrication and Group 2: traditional denture fabrication. All 16 impressions were taken following Heraeus Kulzer’s Pala® Digital Denture recommendations using Flexitime® Fast & Scan heavy and light body PVS materials (Heraus Kulzer). The impressions from Group 2 were poured up with Microstone (Golden, ISO Type 3) to obtain 8 casts. The baseline case model, the 8 casts from Group 2, and the 8 impressions from Group 1 were all then scanned with a 3D digital scanner (Evolve, Open Technology modified by Evolution Dental Lab) to obtain 3D STL (Steriolithography) file renderings. Each individual cast and impression 3D rendering was then directly compared using Geomagic Wrap® Software, back to the baseline case 3D rendering by superimposing all tissue surfaces and evaluating for overall accuracy. The data was analyzed using Independent Samples t-test and Mann Whitney test. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistical significant.
Results: See table 1. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups in Max Distance negative using Mann Whitney or Average Distance negative using Independent samples t-test. Statistically significant differences were seen with RMS Estimate (Group 1: 0.1411 ± 0.037, Group 2: 0.604 ± 0.230), Max Distance positive, and Average Distance negative using Independent sample t-tests (P <0.05.)
Conclusions: In accuracy comparison of traditional denture fabrication vs. digital denture fabrication, according to RMS estimate, a statistically significant difference existed favoring the accuracy of digital denture fabrication.
IMAGES
2408598_File000000.jpg
2408598_File000000.jpg