Additively manufactured CAD-CAM complete dentures with intraoral scanning and cast digitization: A controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE

To assess, clinically, patient satisfaction of additively manufactured complete dentures with intraoral scanning and hybrid cast digitization in comparison with conventional complete dentures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants who were edentulous in both arches were recruited and received three types of complete dentures (CDs): conventionally manufactured with conventional impression (CC), additively manufactured with intraoral scanning (AMI), and additively manufactured with cast digitization (AMH). Definitive impressions of the edentulous arches were made with medium viscosity polyvinyl siloxane (Hydrorise Monophase; Zhermack, Italy) for the CC group, intraoral scanning (TRIOS 4; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) for the AMI group, and laboratory scanning of the definitive casts (Ceramill Map400 AMANNGIRRBACH, Pforzheim, Deutschland) for the AMH group. The trial dentures of the CC group were scanned for occlusion registrations of the AMI and AMH groups and were used to guide the designing process (Exocad 3.0 Galway; Exocad GmbH). The AMI and AMH dentures were additively manufactured with a vat-polymerization 3D printer (Sonic XL 4K; phrozen, Taiwan). Patient satisfaction and clinical outcome were assessed with OHIP EDENT, and 14-factor criteria, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed with paired sample t-test and one-way repeated measure ANOVA for satisfaction, Wilcoxon signed rank test for clinical outcome, and Pearson's r (r) for effect size, with α = 0.05.

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.