Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis compares occlusal trueness and precision in complete dentures, highlighting manufacturing technique impacts.
This study aims to compare the occlusal trueness and precision of teeth manufactured using two modern digital milling processes. A total of 38 complete dentures (CDs) were fabricated and analyzed. CDs in Group 1 (monolithic) (n = 19) were produced using a monolithic bicolor resin disk, whereas in Group 2 (oversize) (n = 19) were fabricated using the oversize process, which involves two separate resin disks of different colors. Two investigation methods were developed to evaluate trueness and precision: cusp area analysis and cusp vertex analysis. The study included three levels of analysis: a comparison of the two measurement methods, an evaluation of the monolithic versus oversize processes, and an assessment of under- and overcontouring inaccuracies. Statistical analysis using the Welch two-sample t-test, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the modified signed-likelihood ratio test (SLRT) revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 2.2 × 10-16) between the two measurement methods (vertex vs. area) for both the monolithic and oversize groups, with the vertex method demonstrating greater accuracy. The analysis of over- and undercontouring inaccuracies revealed that 55% of the surface for the monolithic process exhibited overcontouring, compared to 99% for the oversize process, indicating a strong tendency toward surface roughness in the latter. The monolithic milling method exhibited significantly superior accuracy compared to the oversize process (P < .05). Additionally, the Reference Point System (RPS) metrological method proved more reliable than the best-fit method for comparing complex structures, offering more accurate estimates of both trueness and precision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciocca et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: