ObjectiveTo evaluate the volumetric changes on occlusal surface of computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) occlusal devices fabricated following a fully digital workflow after occlusal adjustment, compared to those fabricated with an analog workflow.Materials and MethodsEight participants were included in this clinical pilot study, receiving two different occlusal devices fabricated with two different workflows, fully analog and fully digital. Every occlusal device was scanned before and after the occlusal adjustments to compare the volumetric changes using a reverse engineering software program. Moreover, three independent evaluators assessed a semi‐quantitative and qualitative comparison using visual analog scale and dichotomous evaluation. The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to validate normal distribution assumption, and a dependent t‐Student test for paired variables was used to determine statistically significant differences (p‐value < 0.05).ResultsThe root mean square value was extracted from the 3‐Dimensional (3D) analysis of the occlusal devices. The average values of the root mean square were higher for the analogic technique (0.23 ± 0.10 mm) than the digital technique (0.14 ± 0.07 mm) but the differences were not statistically significant (paired t‐Student test; p = 0.106) between the two fabrication techniques. The semiquantitative visual analog scale values between the impression for the digital (5.08 ± 2.4 cm) and analog (3.80 ± 3.3 cm) technique were significant (p < 0.001), and statistically significant differences values were assessed for evaluator 3 compared to the other evaluators (p < 0.05). However, the three evaluators agreed on the qualitative dichotomous evaluation in 62% of the cases, and at least two evaluators agreed in 100% of the evaluations.ConclusionsOcclusal devices fabricated following a fully digital workflow resulted in fewer occlusal adjustments, as they could be a valid alternative to those fabricated following an analog workflow.Clinical SignificanceFabricated occlusal devices following a fully digital workflow could have some advantages over analog workflow such reduce occlusal adjustments at delivery appointment, which can result in reduced chair time and therefore increased comfort for the patient and clinician.
ObjectiveThis clinical trial aims to compare the accuracy of interocclusal registration in centric relation taken with polyvinyl siloxane and intraoral scanner (IOS) with the fabrication of occlusal devices.MethodsThirty‐one participants were included in the trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05317182) receiving two different occlusal devices from two different workflows. One workflow was performed using polyvinyl siloxane impression material and the other with IOS. Every splint was scanned before and after the occlusal adjustments to compare the volumetric changes using the Root Mean Square deviation (RMS). Furthermore, three evaluators assessed the 3D comparison using color maps in a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).ResultsThe average values of RMS were higher for the analog approach (0.01 ± 0.067) than the digital approach (0.065 ± 0.035). However, the differences were not statistically significant (p < 0.063) between the two impression techniques. For the semiquantitative analysis performed by blinded evaluators, differences in VAS values between the impression for the digital (2.08 ± 2.4) and analog (3.80 ± 3.3) technique were statistically significant. The three evaluators agreed in more than 90% of the qualitative dichotomous evaluation.ConclusionDigital impressions did not show inferior accuracy compared to conventional impressions when assessed using quantitative measurements.Clinical SignificanceThis clinical trial provided evidence on registering interocclusal relationship at increased vertical dimension with fully digital workflow for complete arch prosthesis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.