Comparison of denture tooth movement between CAD-CAM and conventional fabrication techniques

Statement of problem

Data comparing the denture tooth movement of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and conventional denture processing techniques are lacking.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the denture tooth movement of pack-and-press, fluid resin, injection, CAD-CAM-bonded, and CAD-CAM monolithic techniques for fabricating dentures to determine which process produces the most accurate and reproducible prosthesis.

Material and methods

A total of 50 dentures were evaluated, 10 for each of the 5 groups. A master denture was fabricated and milled from prepolymerized poly(methyl methacrylate). For the conventional processing techniques (pack-and-press, fluid resin, and injection) a polyvinyl siloxane putty mold of the master denture was made in which denture teeth were placed and molten wax injected. The cameo surface of each wax-festooned denture was laser scanned, resulting in a standard tessellation language (STL) format file. The CAD-CAM dentures included 2 subgroups: CAD-CAM-bonded teeth in which the denture teeth were bonded into the milled denture base and CAD-CAM monolithic teeth in which the denture teeth were milled as part of the denture base. After all specimens had been fabricated, they were hydrated for 24 hours, and the cameo surface laser scanned. The preprocessing and postprocessing scan files of each denture were superimposed using surface-matching software. Measurements were made at 64 locations, allowing evaluation of denture tooth movement in a buccal, lingual, mesial-distal, and occlusal direction. The use of median and interquartile range values was used to assess accuracy and reproducibility. Levene and Kruskal-Wallis analyses of variance were used to evaluate differences between processing techniques (α=.05).

Results

The CAD-CAM monolithic technique was the most accurate, followed by fluid resin, CAD-CAM-bonded, pack-and-press, and injection. CAD-CAM monolithic technique was the most reproducible, followed by pack-and-press, CAD-CAM-bonded, injection, and fluid resin. Techniques involving compression during processing showed increased positive occlusal tooth movement compared with techniques not involving compression.

Conclusions

CAD-CAM monolithic dentures produced the best combination of accuracy and reproducibility of the tested techniques. The results from this study demonstrate that varying amounts of tooth movement can be expected depending on the processing technique. However, the clinical significance of these differences is unknown.