Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026
08:01
Designing CAD/CAM Surgical Guides for Maxillary Reconstruction Using an In-house Approach
Published on: August 24, 2018
9.1K
Development and Comparison of Conventional and 3D-Printed Laboratory Models of Maxillary Defects
Ahmad Alanezi1, May Aljanahi1,2, Keyvan Moharamzadeh1,3
1Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine (HBMCDM), Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Dubai P.O. Box 505055, United Arab Emirates.
Dentistry Journal
|May 26, 2023
Summary
Digital impression techniques offer a faster method for recording maxillary defects compared to traditional methods, though both approaches yield similar laboratory model fabrication times. This study compared conventional and digital workflows for prosthetic rehabilitation.
Area of Science:
- Dental prosthetics and maxillofacial rehabilitation.
- Biomaterials and digital manufacturing in dentistry.
Background:
- Accurate impression recording of maxillary defects is crucial for prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillectomy.
- Conventional and digital impression techniques present distinct challenges and benefits in this clinical context.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and optimize conventional and 3D-printed laboratory models of maxillary defects.
- To compare the dimensional accuracy and time efficiency of conventional versus digital impression techniques using these models.
Main Methods:
- Fabrication of six distinct maxillary defect models, including a central palatal defect model.
- Comparison of conventional silicone impressions with digital intra-oral scanning on the central palatal defect model.
- Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and time taken for defect recording and laboratory analogue production.
Main Results:
- Digital workflow demonstrated statistically significant differences in defect size measurements compared to the conventional technique (p < 0.05).
- Intra-oral scanning significantly reduced the time for recording the arch and defect compared to traditional methods.
- No significant difference was found in the total time for fabricating the maxillary central defect model between techniques (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
- Developed laboratory models are suitable for comparing conventional and digital workflows in prosthetic treatment.
- Digital impression techniques show promise for improving efficiency in capturing maxillary defects for rehabilitation.
