Randomized comparative crossover clinical study of mechanical and optical behavior, and oral health–related quality of life of CAD-CAM milled and 3D-printed complete-arch implant-supported interim restorations

IF 3.6 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry Pub Date : 2026-08-10 Epub Date: 2026-07-06 DOI:10.1111/jopr.70186

Solange Vasquez-Ramos DDS, MSc, PhD Candidate, Rocío Cascos DDS, MSc, PhD, Juan Ballesteros-Martínez DDS, PhD Candidate, Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD, Miguel Gómez-Polo DDS, PhD

{"title":"Randomized comparative crossover clinical study of mechanical and optical behavior, and oral health–related quality of life of CAD-CAM milled and 3D-printed complete-arch implant-supported interim restorations","authors":"Solange Vasquez-Ramos DDS, MSc, PhD Candidate, Rocío Cascos DDS, MSc, PhD, Juan Ballesteros-Martínez DDS, PhD Candidate, Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD, Miguel Gómez-Polo DDS, PhD","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical evidence regarding 3D-printed complete arch interim prostheses remains limited. This randomized crossover trial was designed to compare mechanical complications between milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and a hybrid ceramic 3D-printed interim restoration and assess mechanical complications, passive fit, optical behavior, and oral health–related quality of life.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty edentulous patients received two complete arch interim prostheses, one milled PMMA and one hybrid ceramic resin 3D-printed restoration, each used for 3 months in a randomized crossover sequence. Mechanical complications, passive fit, optical parameters (L*, a*, <i>b</i>*, Δ<i>E</i>00), and oral health–related quality of life were assessed. Paired nonparametric tests, including the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar test, were applied (α = 0.05), and risk differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Milled PMMA exhibited fewer mechanical complications than 3D-printed (10% vs. 45%; <i>p</i> = 0.016; risk difference +35.0 percentage points; 95% CI: 9.5–60.5). Passive fit showed no statistically significant differences between materials (<i>p</i> = 0.500). Mean Δ<i>E</i>00 did not differ significantly (PMMA 4.68 ± 6.57; 3D-printed 4.73 ± 4.75; <i>p</i> = 0.243). The 3D-printed material presented higher <i>L</i>* values at both evaluations (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and a significant increase in <i>a</i>* over time (<i>p</i> = 0.008). Both materials improved Oral Health Impact Profile-14 scores; at 3 months, 3D-printed prostheses showed slightly lower scores than PMMA (<i>p</i> = 0.045).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Milled PMMA showed more favorable mechanical performance. Both materials demonstrated passive fit, stable optical behavior, and improvements in patient-reported outcomes during the 3-month period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05958043.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":"35 7","pages":"1021-1030"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopr.70186","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Clinical evidence regarding 3D-printed complete arch interim prostheses remains limited. This randomized crossover trial was designed to compare mechanical complications between milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and a hybrid ceramic 3D-printed interim restoration and assess mechanical complications, passive fit, optical behavior, and oral health–related quality of life.

Materials and Methods

Twenty edentulous patients received two complete arch interim prostheses, one milled PMMA and one hybrid ceramic resin 3D-printed restoration, each used for 3 months in a randomized crossover sequence. Mechanical complications, passive fit, optical parameters (L*, a*, b*, ΔE00), and oral health–related quality of life were assessed. Paired nonparametric tests, including the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar test, were applied (α = 0.05), and risk differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Results

Milled PMMA exhibited fewer mechanical complications than 3D-printed (10% vs. 45%; p = 0.016; risk difference +35.0 percentage points; 95% CI: 9.5–60.5). Passive fit showed no statistically significant differences between materials (p = 0.500). Mean ΔE00 did not differ significantly (PMMA 4.68 ± 6.57; 3D-printed 4.73 ± 4.75; p = 0.243). The 3D-printed material presented higher L* values at both evaluations (p < 0.001) and a significant increase in a* over time (p = 0.008). Both materials improved Oral Health Impact Profile-14 scores; at 3 months, 3D-printed prostheses showed slightly lower scores than PMMA (p = 0.045).

Conclusions

Milled PMMA showed more favorable mechanical performance. Both materials demonstrated passive fit, stable optical behavior, and improvements in patient-reported outcomes during the 3-month period.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05958043.

查看原文本刊更多论文

CAD-CAM研磨和3d打印全弓种植体支持临时修复体的力学和光学行为以及口腔健康相关生活质量的随机比较交叉临床研究。

目的：关于3d打印完整弓过渡假体的临床证据仍然有限。这项随机交叉试验旨在比较研磨聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）和混合陶瓷3d打印临时修复体之间的机械并发症，并评估机械并发症、被动配合、光学行为和口腔健康相关生活质量。材料与方法：20例无牙患者接受2个全弓临时修复体，1个磨粒PMMA修复体和1个混合陶瓷树脂3d打印修复体，随机交叉使用3个月。评估机械并发症、被动配合、光学参数（L*、a*、b*， ΔE00）和口腔健康相关生活质量。采用配对非参数检验，包括Wilcoxon符号秩检验和McNemar检验（α = 0.05），计算95%置信区间的风险差异。结果：磨铣PMMA机械并发症比3d打印PMMA少（10% vs. 45%; p = 0.016；风险差+35.0个百分点；95% CI: 9.5-60.5）。被动拟合在不同材料间无统计学差异（p = 0.500）。平均值ΔE00无显著差异（PMMA 4.68±6.57；3d打印4.73±4.75;p = 0.243）。3d打印材料在两项评估中均表现出更高的L*值（p < 0.001），并且随着时间的推移，a*值显著增加（p = 0.008）。两种材料都提高了口腔健康影响概况-14评分；3个月时，3d打印修复体的评分略低于PMMA （p = 0.045）。结论：经研磨处理的PMMA具有较好的力学性能。在3个月的时间里，这两种材料都表现出了被动配合、稳定的光学行为和患者报告结果的改善。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

7.90

自引率

15.00%

发文量

171

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.