Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 22, 2025
Designing CAD/CAM Surgical Guides for Maxillary Reconstruction Using an In-house Approach
Published on: August 24, 2018
Fit of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated from 3D printed patterns versus the conventional method: An
Rata Rokhshad1, Azita Mazaheri Tehrani2, Reza Nahidi2
1Dentist, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; and Topic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Berlin, Germany.
Statement Of Problem:
The conventional method of fabricating removable partial denture (RPD) patterns is a time-consuming, expensive, and complex process, and the success of the treatment depends on the fit of the framework. Questions still remain as to whether the 3D-printing method is an acceptable procedure compared with the conventional method.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the fit of RPDs cast from 3D printed frameworks and conventionally fabricated RPDs according to the gaps between the framework and the reference model.
Material And Methods:
A metal reference model was made from a Kennedy class III modification 1 maxillary typodont. For the conventional group (n=9), impressions were made from the metal cast. Cobalt chromium frameworks were cast with the conventional method. For the digital group (n=9), the metal cast was scanned with a laboratory scanner, and the RPD was designed in the 3Shape platform. The standard tessellation language (STL) file of the design was downloaded to a 3D printer (Hunter DLP), and 9 resin frameworks were printed. These frameworks were invested and cast in the same dental laboratory as the first group. Gap measurement was assessed vertically with a superimposition software program (Geomagic Control X), and additional measurements were assessed under rests, reciprocal arms, and a 2.2-mm box under the major connector. The independent t test was used for determining the results and statistical analysis between groups. The paired t test was used for statistical analysis within groups (α=.05 for all tests).
Results:
No significant differences (P>.05) were observed in the mean ±standard deviation in overall fit according to the gaps in the conventional group (103 ±18 μm) and those in the digital group (109 ±21 μm). The biggest gap (poorest fit) was observed in the 2.2-mm box under the major connector (115 ±6 μm).
Conclusions:
Both conventional and 3D-printing methods showed clinically acceptable fits. Further clinical studies with a larger sample size and long-term follow-up are needed.
