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.

Virtual patient representation with silicone guide and a 3D scanner accessory for a user-friendly facial scanning workflow: A clinical report of smile design and ceramic veneers.

Digital smile design and ceramic veneers are described with virtual patient representation. The procedure included facial scanning with a 3D scanner accessory (Structure sensor pro; Occipital Inc) mounted on a tablet computer (iPad; Apple Inc) and an innovative chairside silicone guide to replace the intraoral scan body for a straightforward and user-friendly workflow.

Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) of the edentulous arch with the hybrid protocol of cast digitization (CD), and to investigate the effect of arch type and area on trueness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants that were edentulous in both arches were recruited. Two impression protocols were used; the IOS as the test protocol with an IOS device (TRIOS 4; 3Shape, Denmark), and the CD as the control, including tracing compound (TRACING STICKS; Kemdent, UK) for border molding, polyvinyl siloxane (Hydrorise Monophase; Zhermack, Italy) for impression, and cast digitization with a laboratory scanner (ceramill® map400, AMANNGIRRBACH, Germany). Scanned files were exported to a 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems, NC) for trueness analysis. The CD file (reference file) for each participant was split into 2 areas; the dynamic area representing the mobile tissues at the peripheral border, and the static area representing the rest of the arch. Statistical analyses were performed with 1-sample t-test for the difference between CD and IOS protocols, paired sample t-test for the difference between the static and dynamic areas for each arch, and an independent sample t-test for the difference between the maxillary and mandibular arches for each area, with α = 0.05. Effect size was calculated with Cohen's d (d), with 0.2 as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large. RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were included. The difference between the IOS and CD protocol was significant for all subset comparisons (p < 0.001, d: 2.5-6.2, large effect size). Dynamic areas had lower trueness in comparison with static areas (p < 0.001, d = 4.57, large effect size for the maxillary arch, p < 0.001, d = 3.96, large effect size for the mandibular arch). Mandibular arch had lower trueness in comparison with the maxillary arch (p < 0.001, d = 1.45, large effect size for the static areas, p = 0.009, d = 0.85, large effect size for the dynamic areas, p < 0.001, d = 1.71, large effect size for all areas). Color difference map showed marked positive deviation in the buccal dynamic areas of both arches, and nonmatching areas with evident overstretching. CONCLUSIONS: While the IOS of edentulous arches could be feasible for attached mucosa, providing a functional shape for the peripheral border remains a challenge, with a thinner and more outward border for the IOS in comparison with the CD protocol. The IOS of the mandibular arch is more difficult and has lower trueness in comparison with the maxillary arch.

Additive Manufacturing of Dental Ceramics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of using additive manufacturing (AM) for dental ceramic fabrication in comparison with subtractive manufacturing (SM), and to evaluate the effect of the type of AM technology on dental ceramic fabrication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted electronically in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Cochran Library databases, and also by other methods (table of contents screening, backward and forward citations, and grey literature search) up to February 12, 2022, to identify records evaluating additive manufacturing of ceramics for dental purposes in comparison with subtractive manufacturing. A minimum of 2 review authors conducted tstudy selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Quality assessment was performed with Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and the quantitative synthesis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program (CMA, Biostat Inc). Hedges's g for effect size was calculated, with 0.2 as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 and prediction interval (PI) statistics. Publication bias was investigated with funnel plots and grey literature search. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis; 11 in vitro studies on accuracy, 1 in vivo study on color, and 16 in vitro studies on physical and mechanical properties. Meta-analysis showed overall higher accuracy for SM compared with AM, with medium effect size (0.679, CI: 0.173 to 1.185, p = 0.009) and also for marginal (g = 1.05, CI: 0.344 to 1.760, p = 0.004), occlusal (g = 2.24, CI: 0.718 to 3.766, p = 0.004), and total (g = 4.544, CI: -0.234 to 9.323, p = 0.062) with large effect size; whereas AM had higher accuracy than SM with small effect size for the external (g = -0.238, CI: -1.215 to 0.739), p = 0.633), and internal (g = -0.403, CI: -1.273 to 0.467, p = 0.364) surfaces. For technology, self-glazed zirconia protocol had the smallest effect size (g = -0.049, CI: -0.878 to 0.78, p = 0.907), followed by stereolithography (g = 0.305, CI: -0.289 to 0.9, p = 0.314), and digital light processing (g = 1.819, CI: 0.662 to 2.976, p = 0.002) technologies. Flexural strength was higher for ceramics made by SM in comparison to AM with large effect size (g = -2.868, CI: -4.371 to -1.365, p < 0.001). Only 1 study reported on color, favoring ceramics made through combined AM and SM. CONCLUSIONS: Subtractive manufacturing had better overall accuracy, particularly for the marginal and occlusal areas, higher flexural strength, and more favorable hardness, fracture toughness, porosity, fatigue, and volumetric shrinkage; whereas AM had more favorable elastic modulus and wettability. Both methods had favorable biocompatibility. All studies on accuracy and mechanical properties were in vitro, with high heterogeneity and low to very low certainty of evidence. There is a lack of studies on color match and esthetics.