Ciocca Leonardo, Maltauro Mattia, Kravets Volodymyr, Meneghello Roberto, Montanari Angela, Breschi Lorenzo, Anderlucci Laura
Oral and Maxillo-Facial Prosthodontics, Section of Prosthodontics, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Laboratory of Design Methods and Tools in Industrial Engineering, Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2025 Aug;17(4):185-196. doi: 10.4047/jap.2025.17.4.185. Epub 2025 Aug 19.
This study aims to compare the occlusal trueness and precision of teeth manufactured using two modern digital milling processes.
A total of 38 complete dentures (CDs) were fabricated and analyzed. CDs in Group 1 (monolithic) (n = 19) were produced using a monolithic bicolor resin disk, whereas in Group 2 (oversize) (n = 19) were fabricated using the oversize process, which involves two separate resin disks of different colors. Two investigation methods were developed to evaluate trueness and precision: cusp area analysis and cusp vertex analysis. The study included three levels of analysis: a comparison of the two measurement methods, an evaluation of the monolithic versus oversize processes, and an assessment of under- and overcontouring inaccuracies.
Statistical analysis using the Welch two-sample t-test, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the modified signed-likelihood ratio test (SLRT) revealed a statistically significant difference ( < 2.2 × 10) between the two measurement methods (vertex vs. area) for both the monolithic and oversize groups, with the vertex method demonstrating greater accuracy. The analysis of over- and undercontouring inaccuracies revealed that 55% of the surface for the monolithic process exhibited overcontouring, compared to 99% for the oversize process, indicating a strong tendency toward surface roughness in the latter.
The monolithic milling method exhibited significantly superior accuracy compared to the oversize process ( < .05). Additionally, the Reference Point System (RPS) metrological method proved more reliable than the best-fit method for comparing complex structures, offering more accurate estimates of both trueness and precision.
本研究旨在比较使用两种现代数字铣削工艺制造的牙齿的咬合准确性和精度。
共制作并分析了38副全口义齿(CDs)。第1组(整体式)(n = 19)的CDs使用整体双色树脂盘制作,而第2组(加大尺寸式)(n = 19)使用加大尺寸工艺制作,该工艺涉及两个不同颜色的单独树脂盘。开发了两种调查方法来评估准确性和精度:尖点面积分析和尖点顶点分析。该研究包括三个分析层面:两种测量方法的比较、整体式与加大尺寸式工艺的评估以及轮廓不足和轮廓过度不准确的评估。
使用韦尔奇两样本t检验、非参数威尔科克森符号秩检验和修正符号似然比检验(SLRT)进行的统计分析表明,对于整体式和加大尺寸式两组,两种测量方法(顶点法与面积法)之间存在统计学显著差异(< 2.2 × 10),顶点法显示出更高的准确性。对轮廓不足和轮廓过度不准确的分析表明,整体式工艺的55%的表面存在轮廓过度,而加大尺寸式工艺为99%,这表明后者有很强的表面粗糙度倾向。
与加大尺寸工艺相比,整体式铣削方法的准确性显著更高(< 0.05)。此外,对于比较复杂结构,参考点系统(RPS)计量方法被证明比最佳拟合方法更可靠,能提供更准确的准确性和精度估计。