Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A crossover clinical trial compares oral health-related quality of life and chewing efficiency in edentulous patients using two dentures.
Background. Additive manufacturing has introduced novel materials and workflows for complete denture fabrication; however, high-quality clinical evidence comparing patient-centered outcomes of 3D-printed and conventionally fabricated dentures remains limited. This compared oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and chewing efficiency between conventional and 3D-printed dimethacrylate-based resin complete dentures. Methods. Twenty completely edentulous patients were enrolled in this randomized two-period crossover clinical trial. Each participant received both interventions—conventional complete dentures and 3D-printed dimethacrylate-based resin complete dentures—in a randomized sequence. OHRQoL was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous Patients (OHIP-EDENT), and chewing efficiency was evaluated using a two-colored chewing gum mixing ability test by calculating the standard deviation of hue (H-SD). Assessments were performed at insertion (T0), after 3 months (T3), and after 6 months (T6). Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Intra-subject comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for OHIP-EDENT scores and paired t-tests for chewing efficiency. Statistical significance was set at P≤0.05. Results. No statistically significant differences were observed between conventional and 3D-printed dentures regarding overall OHIP-EDENT scores or individual domains at T0 , T3 , or T6 (P>0.05). Both denture types demonstrated significant improvements in OHRQoL from the pre-treatment period to T6 (P<0.05). Similarly, chewing efficiency showed no significant differences between denture types across all chewing cycles (P>0.05). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this randomized crossover study, 3D-printed dimethacrylate-based resin complete dentures demonstrated clinical performance and satisfaction comparable to conventional dentures, supporting their use as a reliable alternative in complete denture rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emera et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: