Comparative evaluation of digitally fabricated complete dentures versus conventional complete dentures: A randomized, single-blinded, cross-over clinical trial

Abstract

Statement of problemClinical trials comparing outcomes associated with digital complete dentures (CDs) fabricated from intraoral scan data with those of CDs fabricated by using the conventional workflow are lacking. PurposeThe purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of and patient satisfaction associated with digitally versus conventionally fabricated CDs. Material and methodsEight participants requiring CDs were enrolled in this study. Two sets of CDs were fabricated for each participant. One set was fabricated by using a digital workflow, which involved digital scanning with an intraoral scanner, whereas the other set was made by using the conventional workflow. The participants were given 1 set of CDs for 1 month and another set for the next month. The order of placing CDs was randomly selected for each participant. The internal adaptation, masticatory force, and masticatory efficiency of the CDs in each group were evaluated for objective analysis. Additionally, a questionnaire was provided to the participants, and the responses were evaluated for subjective satisfaction analysis. All parameters were analyzed by using t tests (α=.05). ResultsThe internal adaptation did not statistically significantly differ between the conventional and digital CDs with regard to the maxillary arches (P=.406) and mandibular arches (P=.412). The average masticatory force (P=.051) and maximum masticatory force (P=.110) likewise did not statistically significantly differ between the 2 types of CDs. Masticatory efficiency, expressed via the mixing ability index, was statistically better for conventional CDs than the digital CDs (P=.009). No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 types of CDs in terms of overall patient satisfaction as assessed by using the study questionnaire (P=.172 for maxillary CD and P=.161 for mandibular CD). However, the conventional CDs were statistically significantly better than the digital CDs with regard to subjective satisfaction with pronunciation ability (P=.006). ConclusionsThe digital CDs were inferior to the conventional CDs in terms of masticatory efficiency and pronunciation. However, internal adaptation and overall patient satisfaction were comparable between conventional and digital CDs. This finding suggests that intraoral scanning and additively manufactured CDs may be suitable for edentulous patients, at least for interim use.