SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Denture Design”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of intraoral photogrammetry for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: A retrospective multicentre study on 35 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) fabricated using an intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) based digital workflow in completely edentulous patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective clinical study included 35 patients rehabilitated with 52 complete-arch ISFDPs (10 FP1, 18 FP2 and 24 FP3 restorations) supported by 221 implants. All definitive prostheses were designed and fabricated using a fully digital workflow initiated by IPG acquisition with the Aoralscan Elite IPG® (SHINING 3D). The primary outcome was clinical accuracy, assessed at definitive prosthesis delivery through evaluation of passive fit using the Sheffield test and radiographic verification. Secondary outcomes included biologic and prosthetic complications, as well as implant and prosthesis survival rates during the follow-up. RESULTS: Passive fit was achieved in all definitive restorations (100%). Radiographic evaluation confirmed accurate marginal adaptation at the implant-prosthesis interface in all cases. No statistically significant differences in clinical accuracy were observed according to treated arch, number of supporting implants, or prosthetic design (P > .05). During a mean follow-up period of 12.1 ± 3.5 months, biologic and prosthetic complications were limited and generally minor. Implant survival was 99.5%, and prosthesis survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective clinical study, the IPG based workflow demonstrated high clinical accuracy and predictable short-term outcomes for complete-arch implant rehabilitation, consistently enabling passive fit and favorable prosthetic performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IPG may represent a clinically reliable and predictable approach for complete-arch digital implant impression acquisition. The high rates of passive fit, together with the low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications observed in this multicenter clinical study, support the use of IPG based workflows for the fabrication of complete-arch ISFDPs.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Clinical performance of monolithic and veneered zirconia three-unit posterior FDPs: A five-year multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This randomized controlled clinical study compared monolithic, partially veneered, and fully veneered zirconia FDPs over a 5-year period with respect to survival, technical and biological complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients requiring three-unit posterior FDPs were randomly allocated to monolithic (MONO-FDP), partially veneered (PV-FDP), or fully veneered (FV-FDP) groups. All FDPs were fabricated from 4 mol% Y₂O₃ partially stabilized zirconia (4Y-TZP). Follow-up examinations were conducted at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years. Technical parameters were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria. Periodontal measurements (PPD, BOP, PI) and patient satisfaction were assessed at all time points. RESULTS: A total of 63 FDPs were evaluated at baseline, 57 at 3 years, and 54 at 5 years. Survival at 5 years was 94.7% for MONO-FDPs, 100% for FV-FDPs and 100% for PV-FDPs. Technical complications occurred exclusively in PV-FDP (33%) and FV-FDP (38%) groups and consisted of minor, polishable chipping; no chipping or fractures were recorded in MONO-FDPs (0%) with statistically significant difference between MONO-FDP and the other two groups (p ≤ 0.014). Biological parameters remained stable across all groups, with no significant differences in PPD, BOP, or PI. PV-FDPs and FV-FDPs tended to receive more favorable professional color ratings, whereas PROMs were similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three FDP designs-monolithic, partially veneered, and fully veneered-fabricated from 4Y-TZP zirconia demonstrated excellent 5-year clinical performance. Technical complications were limited to PV- and FV-FDPs and consisted of minor chipping. Biological outcomes and patient satisfaction were similar across groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The five-year outcomes suggest that veneered, partially veneered, and monolithic FDPs can be used with high clinical reliability; however, restorations incorporating veneering ceramic may present an elevated risk of ceramic chipping.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant prostheses: a pilot RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare framework passive fit, subjective evaluations, and short-term clinical outcomes between conventional impressions (CI) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs). METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 22 patients were allocated to the CI or IOS groups. All participants received a definitive one-piece CIFDP. The primary outcome was framework passive fit, assessed using the Vision and Tactile Score (V&T score), which included framework lift-off, the single-screw test, the full-screw test, smoothness of screw insertion, and radiographic gap assessment. Secondary outcomes included operator evaluation, patient satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS), early implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), modified Plaque Index (mPII), and complications at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled (CI: n = 11; IOS: n = 11), and one patient in the CI group was lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference in the V&T score was observed between the CI and IOS groups (4.66 ± 0.17 vs. 4.65 ± 0.28; P = 0.93). The operator reported greater nervousness during the CI procedure than during IOS (21.82 ± 15.69 vs. 8.64 ± 7.47; P < 0.05). Patients in the CI group reported significantly greater discomfort, including nausea and anxiety, than those in the IOS group (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the early implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in MBL (0.09 ± 0.09 vs. 0.06 ± 0.10 mm; P = 0.43) or mPII (0.10 ± 0.12 vs. 0.10 ± 0.28; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: IOS and CI achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria, including controlled implant number, spacing, and angulation. IOS provided a more favorable experience for both operators and patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In complete-arch implant restorations, intraoral scanning may provide clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional impressions while improving patient comfort.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluating Patient Satisfaction and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14): A Multicenter Crossover Study Comparing Selective Pressure Impression Conventional Dentures with Mucostatic Digital Dentures.

PURPOSE: To compare patient satisfaction and oral health impact between individuals receiving complete dentures made by digital methods and those using conventional techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized crossover clinical trial, 23 patients aged 40 years and older with completely edentulous arches were enrolled at three treatment centers. Each participant received two sets of complete dentures: one set created using conventional methods (selective pressure impression) and the other through digital techniques (mucostatic digital impression). The order of denture placement was randomized, with each set used for 4 weeks. A trained specialist administered treatments alongside research tools, including a general information questionnaire, a denture satisfaction survey, and the OHIP-14 interview tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Participants with digital dentures reported significantly higher satisfaction regarding treatment duration, comfort, confidence, chewing ability, esthetics, and overall satisfaction compared to those with conventional dentures. There were no significant differences in satisfaction concerning speech and pronunciation. Overall, the oral health impact on quality of life was similar between denture types, but participants indicated improved quality of life while using dentures compared to being edentulous. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with digital dentures exhibited greater satisfaction across various domains compared to those with conventional dentures, despite similar satisfaction levels in speech and pronunciation. The impact on quality of life was comparable between both types, as measured by the OHIP-14.

Humans↗