CAD-CAM complete removable dental prostheses: A double-blind, randomized, crossover clinical trial evaluating milled and 3D-printed dentures

Is the Number of Appointments for Complete Denture Fabrication Reduced with CAD-CAM? A Literature Review

“…This first sweep was conducted automatically by the application of search filters and identification of exclusion terms in the advanced search interface of PubMed. After an initial screening from both scholars, 24 additional articles were excluded, including seven reviews or surveys [12,19,[34][35][36][37][38], seven describing workflows that required preexisting dentures [39][40][41][42][43][44][45], one not referring to digital workflows in clinical practice [46], four analyzing material properties [47][48][49][50] and five laboratory studies [51][52][53][54][55]. Next, 10 articles were eligible for full text analysis, of which one was excluded because of insufficient classification between CDs and overdentures [56], and one because it was a technique presentation accompanied with clinical pictures without any presentation of the cases [57]).…”

Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part I – Conventional versus CAD-CAM methods: A clinical controlled crossover study

“…However, a recent clinical study reported inferior results compared with milled denture bases regarding the time and cost of prosthodontic aftercare. 11 Moreover, the quality and esthetic outcomes of 3D-printing for a complete CD still need further investigation, as esthetic results seem inferior compared with other fabrication methods. 30 Although some differences were recorded in retention or fit, participants were not able to perceive any difference in the fit sensation of different bases.…”

“…31 When participant and clinician were blinded, their evaluations of dentures fabricated by both techniques were comparable. 11 To date, patient evaluation of the complete process of CAD-CAM fabrication, including functional parameters, satisfaction and esthetics, is still insufficient. The cost-efficiency and time needed for fabrication, including adjustment sessions, should be evaluated from the patient perspective.…”

“…10 A recent clinical crossover trial investigating the clinician and patient evaluation of milled and 3D-printed dentures reported some inferiority of the 3D-printed dentures in terms of different clinical outcomes. 11 A recent systematic review of in vitro studies on the accuracy of digital dentures concluded that the denture base adaptation ranged between 0.058 and 0.29 mm and was within the acceptable clinical range, with an improvement in adaptation occurring after storage in saliva for 21 days; however, a consensus on the threshold of clinical acceptability for the adaptation of a denture base is lacking. 12,13 The superiority of 1 fabrication method has not been established for all aspects; nevertheless, using CAD-CAM methods has the advantage of preserving a digital record that can be valuable for older adults.…”

A Novel Digital Method for Evaluation of Mucosa Thickness Changes in Time: Changes Associated With a Removable Partial Denture

“…Removable partial dentures (RPDs) are still widely used in clinical practices to treat partial edentulism, despite other predominant treatment options, including fixed partial dentures and implants (Douglass & Watson, 2002;Ramsay et al, 2015). A recent review on RPDs (Campbell et al, 2017) emphasised the need for innovation regarding novel materials (Najeeb et al, 2016;Srinivasan, Kalberer, Kamnoedboon, et al, 2021) and fabrication technologies (Alammar et al, 2022;Piedra-Cascón et al, 2021;Revilla-León et al, 2020;Srinivasan, Kalberer, Fankhauser, et al, 2021) due to the limitations associated with existing RPDs (Benso et al, 2013;Preshaw et al, 2011;Saito et al, 2002). During mastication, the mucosa plays a critical role in distributing and withstanding occlusal forces transferred through the denture to the underlying bone (Kumar, 2014;Żmudzki et al, 2015).…”