Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026
06:51
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
8.0K
Dimensional accuracy of different dental CAD software programs in fixed partial denture construction: An in vitro
Muhammed B El-Danasory1, Mohamed Moataz Khamis2, Akram F Neena3
1Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
|September 11, 2025
Summary
Four dental computer-aided design (CAD) software programs were evaluated for their accuracy in creating 3-unit fixed partial denture frameworks. All programs demonstrated acceptable clinical precision, with minor variations in marginal fit and connector dimensions.
Area of Science:
- Digital Dentistry
- Prosthodontics
- Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
Background:
- Computer-aided design (CAD) software is crucial in modern prosthodontics for prosthesis fabrication.
- Limited evidence exists on the comparative accuracy of various dental CAD software programs.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of four different dental CAD software programs.
Main Methods:
- Four CAD software programs (Dental System Premium, Ceramill Mind, Elefsina, CEREC InLab) were used to design 40 frameworks for 3-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs).
- Trueness and precision were assessed based on marginal fit, axial height, cement gap thickness, coping thickness, and connector cross-section area.
- Statistical analysis included ANOVA and t-tests to compare software performance and specific parameters.
Main Results:
- All software achieved 0 µm marginal fit, but axial heights varied, with CEREC InLab showing the shortest.
- Cement gap thicknesses were similar (80-82 µm) across programs.
- CEREC InLab exhibited the highest average coping thickness, while Dental System Premium had the lowest average connector cross-section area.
Conclusions:
- All evaluated dental CAD software programs demonstrated acceptable clinical precision for 3-unit FPD frameworks.
- Minor differences were observed in marginal fit axial heights, coping thickness, and connector dimensions.
- The study confirms the clinical viability of these CAD software options in digital prosthodontics.
