Scholarlink

<p>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 (<i>n</i> = 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&#xa0;mm <b>±</b> 0.13), whereas Blender group showed the highest RMS value (1.95&#xa0;mm <b>±</b> 0.17). For retention, 3Shape group had the highest values (11.21&#xa0;N <b>±</b> 0.07) while, Blender had the lowest retention (6.61&#xa0;N <b>±</b> 1.13). Retention and adaptation tests showed statistically significant difference using ANOVA test (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.05). Surface roughness evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the four groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

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

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月28日

查看全文
  • Lina Samih Eldahmy,
  • Marwa Ezzat Sabet,
  • Fardos Nabil Rizk,
  • Hebatallah Tarek Abdallah

摘要

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.