Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life for prefabricated teeth versus CAD-CAM milled acrylic resin denture teeth. A crossover clinical trial.

Background: Artificial teeth replicate the appearance of natural teeth and restore proper alignment, oral function, and speech. Over the years, dental materials and prosthetic design advancements have transformed the creation and effectiveness of complete denture teeth. This evolution showcases a continued commitment to developing materials and methods that enhance the comfort, functionality, and visual appeal for patients without teeth. This study evaluated and compared patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQL) between prefabricated and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled acrylic resin denture teeth.

Materials and methods: This crossover clinical study included 10 completely edentulous patients rehabilitated with complete dentures (CDs). Two types of acrylic resin teeth were used: prefabricated and CAD-CAM-milled artificial teeth. Crossover design is a research method that minimizes variability among participants by assessing the impact of various treatments on the same individual. This methodological approach facilitates the identification and measurement of the treatment effects. Following six months of complete denture wear, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT-19). Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test in SPSS software, with statistical significance established at P < 0.05.

Results: There was no statistical difference between the groups in the total VAS scores and items, except for chewing efficiency, with a P-value of 0.035, where CAD-CAM milled resin teeth had statistically higher scores. In contrast, prefabricated teeth had a statistically higher aesthetic score (p = 0.033). Regarding OHIP-EDENT-19, many items showed no statistical differences between the two groups, except for functional limitations and difficulty chewing, which had a P-value of 0.05 and were statistically higher in prefabricated teeth. In contrast, psychological discomfort (P = 0.034) and social disability (P = 0.046) had significantly higher scores for the CAD-CAM milled teeth.

Conclusion: This study suggests that prefabricated and CAD-CAM milled resin teeth are viable treatment options for complete dentures. Prefabricated teeth are advisable when aesthetics is the patient's primary concern. Conversely, CAD-CAM milled teeth are preferable when chewing efficiency is the primary concern.

Clinical trial registration: Registered at www.

Clinicaltrials: gov : (NCT06179615) (11-12-2023).