Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2018 | Original Article

CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit

Authors: Otto Steinmassl, Herbert Dumfahrt, Ingrid Grunert, Patricia-Anca Steinmassl

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 8/2018

Abstract

Objectives

Resin polymerisation shrinkage reduces the congruence of the denture base with denture-bearing tissues and thereby decreases the retention of conventionally fabricated dentures. CAD/CAM denture manufacturing is a subtractive process, and polymerisation shrinkage is not an issue anymore. Therefore, CAD/CAM dentures are assumed to show a higher denture base congruence than conventionally fabricated dentures. It has been the aim of this study to test this hypothesis.

Materials and methods

CAD/CAM dentures provided by four different manufacturers (AvaDent, Merz Dental, Whole You, Wieland/Ivoclar) were generated from ten different master casts. Ten conventional dentures (pack and press, long-term heat polymerisation) made from the same master casts served as control group. The master casts and all denture bases were scanned and matched digitally. The absolute incongruences were measured using a 2-mm mesh.

Results

Conventionally fabricated dentures showed a mean deviation of 0.105 mm, SD = 0.019 from the master cast. All CAD/CAM dentures showed lower mean incongruences. From all CAD/CAM dentures, AvaDent Digital Dentures showed the highest congruence with the master cast surface with a mean deviation of 0.058 mm, SD = 0.005. Wieland Digital Dentures showed a mean deviation of 0.068 mm, SD = 0.005, Whole You Nexteeth prostheses showed a mean deviation of 0.074 mm, SD = 0.011 and Baltic Denture System prostheses showed a mean deviation of 0.086 mm, SD = 0.012.

Conclusions

CAD/CAM produces dentures with better fit than conventional dentures.

Clinical Relevance

The present study explains the clinically observed enhanced retention and lower traumatic ulcer-frequency in CAD/CAM dentures.

Xie Q, Ding T, Yang G (2015) Rehabilitation of oral function with removable dentures—still an option? J Oral Rehabil 42(3):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12246 CrossRefPubMed

de Baat C, van Aken AA, Mulder J, Kalk W (1997) “Prosthetic condition” and patients’ judgment of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 78(5):472–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70062-3 CrossRefPubMed

Felton D, Cooper L, Duqum I, Minsley G, Guckes A, Haug S, Meredith P, Solie C, Avery D, Chandler ND (2011) Evidence-based guidelines for the care and maintenance of complete dentures: a publication of the American College of Prosthodontists. J Am Dent Assoc 142(Suppl 1):1S–20S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0067 CrossRefPubMed

Darvell BW, Clark RK (2000) The physical mechanisms of complete denture retention. Br Dent J 189(5):248–252PubMed

Fueki K, Yoshida E, Igarashi Y (2011) A structural equation model relating objective and subjective masticatory function and oral health-related quality of life in patients with removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 38(2):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02134.x CrossRefPubMed

Murray MD, Darvell BW (1989) Reappraisal of the physics of denture retention. Int J Prosthodont 2(3):234–242PubMed

Ansari IH (1997) Establishing the posterior palatal seal during the final impression stage. J Prosthet Dent 78(3):324–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70034-9 CrossRefPubMed

Jacobson TE, Krol AJ (1983) A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete dentures. Part III: support. J Prosthet Dent 49(3):306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90267-6 CrossRefPubMed

Jacobson TE, Krol AJ (1983) A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete dentures. Part II: stability. J Prosthet Dent 49(2):165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90494-8 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jacobson TE, Krol AJ (1983) A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete denture retention, stability, and support. Part I: retention. J Prosthet Dent 49(1):5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90228-7 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Goodacre CJ, Garbacea A, Naylor WP, Daher T, Marchack CB, Lowry J (2012) CAD/CAM fabricated complete dentures: concepts and clinical methods of obtaining required morphological data. J Prosthet Dent 107(1):34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60015-8 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ (2013) CAD/CAM complete dentures: a review of two commercial fabrication systems. J Calif Dent Assoc 41(6):407–416PubMed

13.

Kattadiyil MT, Jekki R, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ (2015) Comparison of treatment outcomes in digital and conventional complete removable dental prosthesis fabrications in a predoctoral setting. J Prosthet Dent 114(6):818–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.001 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ, Kattadiyil MT (2016) Comparison of denture base adaptation between CAD-CAM and conventional fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 116(2):249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.017 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Srinivasan M, Cantin Y, Mehl A, Gjengedal H, Muller F, Schimmel M (2016) CAD/CAM milled removable complete dentures: an in vitro evaluation of trueness. Clin Oral Investig 21(6):2007–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1989-7 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Gale MS, Darvell BW (1999) Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 27(2):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dental Wings Inc. (2016) 7 Series User Manual EN 2016–01-15 v. 3.1.1. http://ifu.straumann.com/content/dam/internet/straumann_ifu/cares/7Series_UserManual_v3.1.1_EN_2016-01-15_high.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2017

18.

Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16(1):11–21PubMed

19.

Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A (2014) Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro, vol 42. J Dent, pp 677–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.016 CrossRefPubMed

20.

AlHelal A, AlRumaih HS, Kattadiyil MT, Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ (2017) Comparison of retention between maxillary milled and conventional denture bases: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 117(2):233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.007 CrossRefPubMed

Title: CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit
Authors: Otto Steinmassl
Herbert Dumfahrt
Ingrid Grunert
Patricia-Anca Steinmassl
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2369-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Correction to: Effectiveness of adjunctive hyaluronic acid application in coronally advanced flap in Miller class I single gingival recession sites: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Dental radiographic findings in 18 individuals with SATB2-associated syndrome

Coexistence of oral lichen planus and pemphigus vulgaris

Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Are dairy products containing probiotics beneficial for oral health? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study of salivary and serum vaspin and total antioxidants in anorexia nervosa