No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the overall accuracy and fit of conventional versus computeraided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks based on standard tessellation language (STL) data analysis, and to evaluate the accuracy and fit of each component of the RPD framework. Materials and Methods: A maxillary metal framework was designed for a Kennedy class III Modification I arch. The master model was scanned and used to compare the fit and accuracy of RPD frameworks. Forty impressions (conventional and digital) of the master cast were made and divided into 4 groups based on fabrication method: group I, lost-wax technique (conventional technique), group II, CAD-printing, group III, CAD-printing from stone cast, and group IV, lost-wax technique from resin-printed model. RPD frameworks were fabricated in cobalt-chromium alloy. All frameworks were scanned, and the gap distance between the framework and scanned master model was measured at 8 locations. Color mapping was conducted using comprehensive metrology software. Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis test, followed by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Results: Color mapping revealed distinct discrepancies in major connectors among the groups. When compared to 3D-printed frameworks, conventional cast frameworks fabricated using dental stone or printed resin models revealed significantly better fit (p < 0.05) particularly in the major connectors and guide plates. The biggest gap (0.33 mm ± 0.20 mm) was observed with the anterior strap of the major connector with the printed frameworks (groups II and III). The method of fabrication did not affect the adaptation of the rests or reciprocation plates. Conclusions: Although both conventional and 3D-printing methods of framework fabrication revealed clinically acceptable adaptation, the conventional cast RPD groups revealed better overall fit and accuracy.

No abstract