Sven Mühlemann1, Goran I Benic2, Vincent Fehmer3, Christoph H F Hämmerle4, Irena Sailer5. 1. Senior Teaching and Research Assistant, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: sven.muehlemann@zzm.uzh.ch. 2. Senior Teaching and Research Assistant, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Master Dental Technician, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Professor, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Professor, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the digital and conventional fabrication technology for providing fixed partial dentures (FPDs). PURPOSE: The purpose of the second part of this clinical study was to compare the laboratory production time for tooth-supported, 3-unit FPDs by means of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems and a conventional workflow. In addition, the quality of the 3-unit framework of each treatment group was evaluated clinically. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each of 10 participants, a 3-unit FPD was fabricated. Zirconia was used as the framework material in the CAD-CAM systems and included Lava C.O.S. CAD software (3M) and centralized CAM (group L); CARES CAD software (Institut Straumann AG) and centralized CAM (group iT); and CEREC Connect CAD software (Dentsply Sirona) and centralized CAM (group C). The noble metal framework in the conventional workflow (group K) was fabricated by means of the traditional lost-wax technique. All frameworks were evaluated clinically before veneering. The time for the fabrication of the cast, the 3-unit framework, and the veneering process was recorded. In addition, chairside time during the clinical appointment for the evaluation of the framework was recorded. The paired Wilcoxon test together with appropriate Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences among treatment groups (α=.05). RESULTS: The total effective working time (mean ±standard deviation) for the dental technician was 220 ±29 minutes in group L, 217 ±23 minutes in group iT, 262 ±22 minutes in group C, and 370 ±34 minutes in group K. The dental technician spent significantly more time in the conventional workflow than in the digital workflow, independent of the CAD-CAM systems used (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the CAD-CAM system, the overall laboratory time for the dental technician was significantly less for a digital workflow than for the conventional workflow.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the digital and conventional fabrication technology for providing fixed partial dentures (FPDs). PURPOSE: The purpose of the second part of this clinical study was to compare the laboratory production time for tooth-supported, 3-unit FPDs by means of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems and a conventional workflow. In addition, the quality of the 3-unit framework of each treatment group was evaluated clinically. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each of 10 participants, a 3-unit FPD was fabricated. Zirconia was used as the framework material in the CAD-CAM systems and included Lava C.O.S. CAD software (3M) and centralized CAM (group L); CARES CAD software (Institut Straumann AG) and centralized CAM (group iT); and CEREC Connect CAD software (Dentsply Sirona) and centralized CAM (group C). The noble metal framework in the conventional workflow (group K) was fabricated by means of the traditional lost-wax technique. All frameworks were evaluated clinically before veneering. The time for the fabrication of the cast, the 3-unit framework, and the veneering process was recorded. In addition, chairside time during the clinical appointment for the evaluation of the framework was recorded. The paired Wilcoxon test together with appropriate Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences among treatment groups (α=.05). RESULTS: The total effective working time (mean ±standard deviation) for the dental technician was 220 ±29 minutes in group L, 217 ±23 minutes in group iT, 262 ±22 minutes in group C, and 370 ±34 minutes in group K. The dental technician spent significantly more time in the conventional workflow than in the digital workflow, independent of the CAD-CAM systems used (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the CAD-CAM system, the overall laboratory time for the dental technician was significantly less for a digital workflow than for the conventional workflow.