Evaluation of the Differences Between Conventional and Digitally Developed Models Used for Prosthetic Rehabilitation in a Case of Untreated Palatal Cleft

Abstract

Objective: The virtual cone beam computed tomography–derived 3-dimensional model was compared with the scanned conventional model used in the fabrication of a palatal obturator for a patient with a large palatal defect. Design: A digitally derived 3-dimensional maxillary model incorporating the palatal defect was generated from the patient’s existing cone beam computerized tomography data and compared with the scanned cast from the conventional impression for linear dimensions, area, and volume. The digitally derived cast was 3-dimensionally printed and the obturator fabricated using traditional techniques. Similarly, an obturator was fabricated from the conventional cast and the fit of both final obturator bulbs were compared in vivo. Results: The digitally derived model produced more accurate volumes and surface areas within the defect. The defect margins and peripheries were overestimated which was reflected clinically. Conclusion: The digitally derived model provided advantages in the fabrication of the palatal obturator; however, further clinical research is required to refine consistency.

Development and virtual validation of a novel digital workflow to rehabilitate palatal defects by using smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry (SPINS)

“…DSC analysed the volumetric spatial overlap between two objects. As seen in previous studies 12 , 21 , 23 , 25 , these two parameters can provide a reliable estimate of how similar two virtual prostheses are to one another.…”

“…Furthermore, the art of capturing and rehabilitating palatal defects with oral scanners alone is fairly new, have caveats, and are mostly discussed through preliminary reports or case descriptions 34 , 37 , 38 . Various reports also suggest that an additional ionizing/magnetic medical scan (CT, CBCT or MRI) is required alongside intraoral scans to appropriately record the defect undercuts 12 , 38 – 40 . Aside from the obvious radiation hazards posed by these medical scans 41 , the high proprietary costs of dental intraoral scanners as well as the required investments in CT/CBCT-based imaging technology must also be considered.…”

“…The defects were designed alongside maxillofacial surgeons to ensure realistic recreation of palatal defects. A standard desktop laser scanner (NextEngine, Santa Monica) was used as control reference to validate SPINS 12 .…”

“…1 ) were mesh surface area (MSA), virtual volume (VV), Hausdorff’s distance (HD) & Area discordance and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). These values were generated by using open-source solutions; Meshlab 19 and CloudCompare 20 and were based on previous research 12 , 21 , 22 . The acceptability thresholds for HD was set at < 0.5mm 23 and DSC was set at 0.70 24 , 25 .…”

Optimization of Prosthodontic Computer‐Aided Designed Models: A Virtual Evaluation of Mesh Quality Reduction Using Open Source Software

“…Meshmixer v3.5 (Autodesk Inc, America) was considered as the standard software (control) based on its recent contributions within prosthetic dentistry 4,16,17 . The open source solutions chosen for evaluation were Meshlab v2020.03 (National Research Council, Italy), 13,17 Blender v2.82 (The Blender foundation, Netherlands) 9,12 and the internet‐based optimization tool SculptGL v1.0 (Stephane Ginier, Canada; https://stephaneginier.com) 18 . The software were selected based on previously mentioned research within the medical and prosthetic rehabilitation space.…”