Statement of problem: While the dimensional accuracy of the intaglio surface of a removable complete denture is key to its adaptation, comfort, and clinical performance, information on the ability of milling and 3D-printing workflows to accurately reproduce this surface is lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the trueness of the intaglio surface of milled and 3D-printed removable complete digital dentures. Material and methods: Intraoral scans were obtained from 14 participants for a total of 20 edentulous arches. Ten maxillary and 10 mandibular denture bases were then designed and fabricated with a completely digital workflow, both with milling and 3D-printing. Fabricated dentures were digitized with the same intraoral scanner used to obtain intraoral digital scans of the edentulous arches. Standard tessellation language (STL) files of the printed and milled denture bases were used for 3D analysis and comparisons with the STL file of the corresponding designed denture base. Specifically, a reverse engineering software program was used to trim and extract intaglio surfaces, align them, and measure their global mean 3D distance. In order to evaluate the homogeneity of production accuracy of each manufacturing process, the intaglio surfaces were also divided into several regions of interest and the corresponding 3D distances measured. Within- and between-group differences and maxillary and mandibular dentures differences were assessed with parametric and nonparametric tests (α=.05). Results: Milling showed a global better trueness of the entire intaglio surface (-0.002 mm) than 3D-printing (0.018 mm), both for the whole data set (P<.001) and for maxillary (P=.032) or mandibular (P=.049) denture base subgroups. Within each fabrication technology, maxillary (P<.11) and mandibular dentures (P=.2) showed no significant difference in trueness. Measured deviations were significantly different from zero for the 3D-printed dentures (P<.001), but not for the milled dentures (P=.487). Additionally, for milled dentures, no significant difference in trueness was found among the 11 regions of interest identified for the maxillary dentures (P=.085) and the 13 regions of interest for the mandibular dentures (P=.211). Conversely, 3D-printing showed significant variations in trueness among the same zones of interest, both in maxillary (P<.001) and mandibular (P=.004) dentures. Conclusions: Within the limits of the manufacturing methodologies used for complete dentures, milling can provide a slightly better trueness of the intaglio surface than 3D-printing, with less variation across several zones of interest. However, given the magnitude of such differences, they may be reasonably considered to be of limited, if any, clinical significance.
Intaglio surface trueness of milled and 3D-printed digital maxillary and mandibular dentures: A clinical study
Lo Russo L.
;Zhurakivska K.;Troiano G.;
2021-01-01
Abstract
Statement of problem: While the dimensional accuracy of the intaglio surface of a removable complete denture is key to its adaptation, comfort, and clinical performance, information on the ability of milling and 3D-printing workflows to accurately reproduce this surface is lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the trueness of the intaglio surface of milled and 3D-printed removable complete digital dentures. Material and methods: Intraoral scans were obtained from 14 participants for a total of 20 edentulous arches. Ten maxillary and 10 mandibular denture bases were then designed and fabricated with a completely digital workflow, both with milling and 3D-printing. Fabricated dentures were digitized with the same intraoral scanner used to obtain intraoral digital scans of the edentulous arches. Standard tessellation language (STL) files of the printed and milled denture bases were used for 3D analysis and comparisons with the STL file of the corresponding designed denture base. Specifically, a reverse engineering software program was used to trim and extract intaglio surfaces, align them, and measure their global mean 3D distance. In order to evaluate the homogeneity of production accuracy of each manufacturing process, the intaglio surfaces were also divided into several regions of interest and the corresponding 3D distances measured. Within- and between-group differences and maxillary and mandibular dentures differences were assessed with parametric and nonparametric tests (α=.05). Results: Milling showed a global better trueness of the entire intaglio surface (-0.002 mm) than 3D-printing (0.018 mm), both for the whole data set (P<.001) and for maxillary (P=.032) or mandibular (P=.049) denture base subgroups. Within each fabrication technology, maxillary (P<.11) and mandibular dentures (P=.2) showed no significant difference in trueness. Measured deviations were significantly different from zero for the 3D-printed dentures (P<.001), but not for the milled dentures (P=.487). Additionally, for milled dentures, no significant difference in trueness was found among the 11 regions of interest identified for the maxillary dentures (P=.085) and the 13 regions of interest for the mandibular dentures (P=.211). Conversely, 3D-printing showed significant variations in trueness among the same zones of interest, both in maxillary (P<.001) and mandibular (P=.004) dentures. Conclusions: Within the limits of the manufacturing methodologies used for complete dentures, milling can provide a slightly better trueness of the intaglio surface than 3D-printing, with less variation across several zones of interest. However, given the magnitude of such differences, they may be reasonably considered to be of limited, if any, clinical significance.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
