PURPOSE

This diagnostic study evaluated the accuracy and time efficiency of digital surveying compared to the conventional method for partially edentulous arches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files of partially edentulous arches were analyzed. Conventional surveying was performed on 3D-printed diagnostic casts, while digital surveying was conducted using CAD software (Dental Wings Inc., Straumann, Montreal, Canada). The path of insertion and removal, and determining factors (guiding planes, undercut areas, and reciprocation) were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity tests were used to measure accuracy. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of true positives identified by both techniques, while specificity was measured as a percentage of true negatives compared with the conventional method. Accuracy was assessed as the ability to correctly differentiate true positives and negatives. The paired t-test (95% CI) compared the mean working time between the techniques.

RESULTS

Agreement on reciprocation was 2.91 times higher in regions with a greater number of edentulous areas compared to those with fewer edentulous areas ( = .025). The agreement of guiding planes in tooth-supported abutments was 2.59 times greater than in distal extension cases ( = .031). Accuracy ranged from 0.73 to 0.85. The working time was significantly longer for the digital technique ( = .030).

CONCLUSION

Both techniques demonstrated high levels of agreement, especially for reciprocation and guiding planes. The digital method exhibited accuracy ranging from good to very good; however, it required a longer working time compared to the conventional approach.