article · Journal of Prosthodontics
This laboratory study evaluates the dimensional accuracy of complete denture bases produced using three different manufacturing techniques. Researchers created a standardised maxillary metal model with three anatomical reference points to fabricate thirty complete denture bases, split equally between computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing milling, three-dimensional printing, and conventional compression moulding. After fabrication, the bases were scanned and assessed for dimensional changes using two distinct approaches: two-dimensional linear distance measurements between the reference points and three-dimensional digital superimposition against the original reference model. The statistical analysis showed significant differences in dimensional accuracy among the three fabrication methods. Ultimately, the results demonstrated that the computer-aided design and milling process achieved superior dimensional accuracy compared to both three-dimensional printing and traditional compression moulding systems for the production of complete denture bases.
Proper denture fit is vital for patient comfort and function, and fabrication precision directly determines how well a prosthesis fits the oral tissues. By demonstrating which digital or traditional fabrication method delivers the highest dimensional accuracy, this work helps dental professionals and technicians select the manufacturing processes that produce the most reliable and well-fitting complete dentures.
This research provides applied comparative data for dental laboratories, prosthodontists, and dental device manufacturers choosing between digital production pathways. It demonstrates a clear accuracy advantage for CAD-CAM milling over 3D printing and conventional compression moulding. Because the study tested commercially available manufacturing workflows on standard models, the findings represent applied research that is immediately relevant to operational decisions in commercial dental laboratories.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
PURPOSE: This study compared the dimensional changes between computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled complete denture bases (CDBs) and three-dimensional (3D) printed CDBs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One maxillary completely edentulous stone model was fabricated with three reference points at the incisive papilla, right molar, and left molar areas marked as X, Y, and Z, respectively. It was scanned to produce a standard tessellation language (STL) file, which was imported to a metal milling machine software to produce the metal model. This metal model was used to fabricate 30 CDBs for analysis. The CDBs were divided into three groups (n = 10 each) according to the fabrication method used as follows: Group 1, CAD-CAM milled CDBs; Group 2, 3D printed CDBs; and Group 3, conventional compression molded CDBs. The CDBs of all groups were scanned after fabrication, and the dimensional changes in each were evaluated by two methods. The first was the two-dimensional evaluation method that involved linear measurement of the distances between the reference points (X-Y, X-Z, and Y-Z) of the scanned reference cast and dentures. The second method was the 3D evaluation method that involved the superimposition of the STL files of the dentures on the STL file of the reference cast. Data were calculated and were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's pairwise post hoc tests. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the dimensional accuracy between the CAD-CAM milled, 3D printed, and conventional compression molded CDBs (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The dimensional accuracy of the CAD-CAM milling system in complete denture fabrication is superior to that of the compression molding and 3D printing systems.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13538
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
