Evaluation of Non-dental open source software in comparison to dental software in construction of digitally designed partial dentures frameworks

TL;DR

This study compares non-dental and dental software for designing dentures, finding dental software provides better adaptation and retention.

Contribution

The study evaluates non-dental software against dental software and conventional methods in denture framework design.

Findings

Dental software (3Shape) showed better adaptation and retention compared to non-dental software (Blender).

Conventional frameworks had better retention than non-dental software designs.

No significant differences were found in surface roughness across all groups.

Abstract

This study aimed to compare removable partial denture frameworks digitally designed using a non-dental software and two dental software programs. Frameworks were designed using Blender (Group A), Exocad (Group B), 3Shape (Group C), and a conventional fabrication method (Group D) on maxillary casts (n = 12 each ). Adaptation, retention, and surface roughness of manufactured frameworks were evaluated using Geomagic Control X software, a universal testing machine, and optical profilometry, respectively. Regarding adaptation results, 3Shape group had the lowest RMS value (1.79 mm ± 0.13), whereas Blender group showed the highest RMS value (1.95 mm ± 0.17). For retention, 3Shape group had the highest values (11.21 N ± 0.07) while, Blender had the lowest retention (6.61 N ± 1.13). Retention and adaptation tests showed statistically significant difference using ANOVA test (P ≤ 0.05). Surface roughness evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the four groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, RPD frameworks designed using dental software demonstrated superior adaptation and retention compared to those designed with non-dental software. Dental software also outperformed the conventional technique in retention. Conventional frameworks showed better retention than those produced using non-dental software. No differences in surface roughness were found among the four groups.

Figures