Sallam Rowan Mohamed Abdelsadek Mohamed, Metwally Nayrouz Adel, Khamis Mohamed Moataz
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion St, Alexandria, Azarita, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Apr 24;25(1):626. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05894-7.
Teeth sockets of the 3 dimensionally (3D) printed denture base can be designed in different shapes. Denture teeth can also be printed separately or splinted. However, the effect of the socket forms and the denture teeth splinting on the teeth displacement has not been clarified in literature. The goal of this study is to evaluate and compare the effect of different socket designs and teeth splinting assemblies on the trueness of the teeth positions of 3D-printed complete dentures.
A total of 80 maxillary dentures were fabricated for this study. All dentures were designed by using a computer-aided design (CAD) software program (exocad software; exocad GmbH). Two designs for the teeth sockets of the denture base were used in this study: socketed design and thimble design. Teeth were also aligned in 3 forms: One-unit splinted design, 3-unit splinted design or unsplinted denture teeth. The dentures were divided into 8 groups (n = 10) according to the design used. Group I (unsplinted teeth/socketed base), Group II (unsplinted teeth/thimbled base), Group III (1-unit splinted teeth/socketed base), Group IV (1-unit splinted teeth/thimble base), Group V (3-unit splinted teeth/socketed base), Group VI (3-unit splinted teeth/thimble base), Group VII (Semi conventional pack and press), Group VIII (Monoblock). Groups from I -VII were 3D-printed by using SLA 3D-printer (Form 2; Formlabs Inc.) (Denture teeth A2, Formlabs) (Denture base LP, Formlabs). Group VIII was 3D-printed from castable wax resin (Castable wax, Formlabs Inc.) then flasked in a conventional manner. All dentures were then scanned by using a desktop scanner (Medit T710, Medit Corp) and saved as STL files. To evaluate the accuracy of the teeth position the CAD design file was imported and set as the reference data to which all scanned dentures were matched and compared by using (Geomagic Control X; 3D system Inc) The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Data was not normally distributed. Comparison between the study groups was done by using Krauskal Wallis test. Significance level was set at (P <.05).
The results showed a significant difference in teeth deviation values among the groups (P <.05). The lowest deviation values were reported in group VII across the overall denture teeth (0.104), anterior denture teeth (0.104) and posterior denture teeth (0.104), regarding the overall denture teeth and the posterior denture teeth, a statistically significant difference was identified when group VII was compared to all other groups. Regarding the anterior denture teeth, a non-statistically significant difference was identified when the group VII is compared to the group III. Higher deviation values were identified in the incisors as compared to the canines. However, deviation values were variable when the premolars and molars were compared.
The results of the present study reported that median deviations were in the range of (0.104-0.282) mm, recommending the clinical choice of group VII followed by group III to provide the highest occlusal trueness.
三维(3D)打印义齿基托的牙槽窝可设计成不同形状。义齿牙齿也可单独打印或进行夹板固定。然而,牙槽窝形状和义齿牙齿夹板固定对牙齿位移的影响在文献中尚未明确。本研究的目的是评估和比较不同牙槽窝设计和牙齿夹板固定组件对3D打印全口义齿牙齿位置准确性的影响。
本研究共制作了80副上颌义齿。所有义齿均使用计算机辅助设计(CAD)软件程序(exocad软件;exocad GmbH)进行设计。本研究中义齿基托的牙槽窝采用了两种设计:有槽设计和套管设计。牙齿也以三种形式排列:单单位夹板固定设计、三单位夹板固定设计或未夹板固定的义齿牙齿。义齿根据所使用的设计分为8组(n = 10)。第一组(未夹板固定牙齿/有槽基托),第二组(未夹板固定牙齿/套管基托),第三组(单单位夹板固定牙齿/有槽基托),第四组(单单位夹板固定牙齿/套管基托),第五组(三单位夹板固定牙齿/有槽基托),第六组(三单位夹板固定牙齿/套管基托),第七组(半传统装盒加压法),第八组(整体铸造法)。第一至七组使用SLA 3D打印机(Form 2;Formlabs公司)进行3D打印(义齿牙齿A2,Formlabs公司)(义齿基托LP,Formlabs公司)。第八组由可铸造蜡树脂3D打印而成(可铸造蜡,Formlabs公司),然后以传统方式装盒。然后使用台式扫描仪(Medit T710,Medit公司)对所有义齿进行扫描,并保存为STL文件。为了评估牙齿位置的准确性,导入CAD设计文件并将其设置为参考数据,所有扫描的义齿均与之匹配,并使用(Geomagic Control X;3D系统公司)进行比较。使用夏皮罗-威尔克正态性检验。数据呈非正态分布。研究组之间的比较采用克劳斯卡尔-沃利斯检验。显著性水平设定为(P <.05)。
结果显示,各组之间的牙齿偏差值存在显著差异(P <.05)。第七组在全口义齿牙齿(0.104)、前牙义齿牙齿(0.104)和后牙义齿牙齿(0.104)方面的偏差值最低。就全口义齿牙齿和后牙义齿牙齿而言,将第七组与所有其他组进行比较时,发现存在统计学显著差异。就前牙义齿牙齿而言,将第七组与第三组进行比较时,未发现统计学显著差异。与尖牙相比,切牙的偏差值更高。然而,在比较前磨牙和磨牙时,偏差值存在差异。
本研究结果表明,中位数偏差在(0.104 - 0.282)mm范围内,建议临床选择第七组,其次是第三组,以提供最高的咬合准确性。