Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(02): 493-500
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772245
Original Article

Intaglio Surface Adaptation of Removable Partial Denture Framework Fabricated by Various Data Acquisition Techniques and Fabrication Approaches

Seehachart Limpiwatana 
1   Residency Training in Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Noppavan Nagaviroj 
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare intaglio surface adaptation of the removable partial denture framework among various data acquisition techniques and fabrication approaches using three-dimensional comparison by metrology software.

Materials and Methods The partial edentulous typodont model with five digital superimposition landmarks was duplicated and scanned for the digital reference model. Three approaches were the conventional lost-wax (group I; LWT, n = 5), intraoral digital impressions combined with PolyJet printing and lost-wax (group II; IP-LWT, n = 5), and extraoral digital impressions combined with PolyJet printing and lost-wax (group III; EP-LWT, n = 5). Each framework was scanned and superimposed with the reference model. The misfits at 53 locations were measured.

Statistical Analysis Data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05).

Results Significant differences were found between three approaches at the reciprocal arm, terminal part of the retentive arm, rest, and major connector (p < 0.05). In the LWT group, the reciprocal arm and palatal vault region of major connector had the lowest misfits, but the highest misfit was found in the midline region (p < 0.001). In the IP-LWT group revealed the most excessive contact at the terminal part of the retentive arm (-0.111 ± 0.038 mm, p = 0.031), with the highest misfit at the rest area (p < 0.001).

Conclusion A difference in adaptation was found in several removable partial denture framework components among three approaches. The LWT group had a better adaptation than other groups. Nevertheless, a clinically acceptable adaptation was seen in all three approaches.

Keywords

CAD/CAM - accuracy - adaptation - 3D printing - removable partial denture


Publication History

Article published online:
20 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Frank RP, Brudvik JS, Leroux B, Milgrom P, Hawkins N. Relationship between the standards of removable partial denture construction, clinical acceptability, and patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83 (05) 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rudd RW, Rudd KD. A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part I. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (03) 251-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rudd RW, Rudd KD. A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part II. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (03) 262-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rudd RW, Rudd KD. A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part III. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (03) 277-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Diwan R, Talic Y, Omar N, Sadig W. Pattern waxes and inaccuracies in fixed and removable partial denture castings. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (05) 553-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109 (02) 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, Goodacre CJ. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (03) 444-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (01) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. BioMed Res Int 2021; 2021: 2673040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 van der Zande MM, Gorter RC, Wismeijer D. Dental practitioners and a digital future: an initial exploration of barriers and incentives to adopting digital technologies. Br Dent J 2013; 215 (11) E21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60 (02) 72-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bilgin MS, Baytaroğlu EN, Erdem A, Dilber E. A review of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture techniques for removable denture fabrication. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (02) 286-291
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Alharbi N, Wismeijer D, Osman RB. Additive manufacturing techniques in prosthodontics: where do we currently stand? A critical review. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30 (05) 474-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012; 12 (01) 16-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khaledi A-A, Farzin M, Akhlaghian M, Pardis S, Mir N. Evaluation of the marginal fit of metal copings fabricated by using 3 different CAD-CAM techniques: milling, stereolithography, and 3D wax printer. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (01) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chen L, Lin WS, Polido WD, Eckert GJ, Morton D. Accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (03) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gan N, Ruan Y, Sun J, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Comparison of adaptation between the major connectors fabricated from intraoral digital impressions and extraoral digital impressions. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Songwatcharaporn A, Nagaviroj N, Kanchanavasita W. A preliminary study on fit accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated digitally and conventionally using the micro-CT. Mahidol Dental Journal 2019; 39: 135-142
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Nikolova MP, Chavali MS. Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D scaffolds: a review. Bioact Mater 2019; 4: 271-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Williams RJ, Bibb R, Rafik T. A technique for fabricating patterns for removable partial denture frameworks using digitized casts and electronic surveying. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91 (01) 85-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Eggbeer D, Bibb R, Williams R. The computer-aided design and rapid prototyping fabrication of removable partial denture frameworks. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2005; 219 (03) 195-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stern MA, Brudvik JS, Frank RP. Clinical evaluation of removable partial denture rest seat adaptation. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53 (05) 658-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dunham D, Brudvik JS, Morris WJ, Plummer KD, Cameron SM. A clinical investigation of the fit of removable partial dental prosthesis clasp assemblies. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95 (04) 323-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lee JW, Park JM, Park EJ, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK. Accuracy of a digital removable partial denture fabricated by casting a rapid prototyped pattern: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (04) 468-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Arnold C, Hey J, Schweyen R, Setz JM. Accuracy of CAD-CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (04) 586-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (01) 92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Soltanzadeh P, Suprono MS, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre C, Gregorius W. An in vitro investigation of accuracy and fit of conventional and CAD/CAM removable partial denture frameworks. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (05) 547-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Negm EE, Aboutaleb FA, Alam-Eldein AM. Virtual evaluation of the accuracy of fit and trueness in maxillary poly(etheretherketone) removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by direct and indirect CAD/CAM techniques. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (07) 804-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2021; 18: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jain A, Dhanraj M. A clinical review of spacer design for conventional complete denture. Biol Med (Aligarh) 2016; 8: 1-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Brudvik JS, Reimers D. The tooth-removable partial denture interface. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68 (06) 924-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966; 16 (02) 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kozior T, Bochnia J, Gogolewski D. et al. Analysis of metrological quality and mechanical properties of models manufactured with photo-curing PolyJet matrix technology for medical applications. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14 (03) 408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Burnett CA, Maguire H. Sprue design in removable partial denture casting. J Dent 1996; 24 (1-2): 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tasaka A, Shimizu T, Kato Y. et al. Accuracy of removable partial denture framework fabricated by casting with a 3D printed pattern and selective laser sintering. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (02) 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed.. Science of Dental materials. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2013: 199-200
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Viswambaran M, Agarwal SK. The effect of four sprue shapes on the quality of cobalt-chromium cast removable partial denture frame-works. Contemp Clin Dent 2013; 4 (02) 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Keltjens HM, Mulder J, Käyser AF, Creugers NH. Fit of direct retainers in removable partial dentures after 8 years of use. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24 (02) 138-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Murray MD, Dyson JE. A study of the clinical fit of cast cobalt-chromium clasps. J Dent 1988; 16 (03) 135-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gavelis JR, Morency JD, Riley ED, Sozio RB. The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 45 (02) 138-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar