Development and Comparison of Conventional and 3D-Printed Laboratory Models of Maxillary Defects

Background: Recording accurate impressions from maxillary defects is a critical and challenging stage in the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients following maxillectomy surgery. The aim of this study was to develop and optimize conventional and 3D-printed laboratory models of maxillary defects and to compare conventional and digital impression techniques using these models. Methods: Six different types of maxillary defect models were fabricated. A central palatal defect model was used to compare conventional silicon impressions with digital intra-oral scanning in terms of dimensional accuracy and total time taken to record the defect and produce a laboratory analogue. Results: Digital workflow produced different results than the conventional technique in terms of defect size measurements which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The time taken to record the arch and the defect using an intra-oral scanner was significantly less compared with the traditional impression method. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques in terms of the total time taken to fabricate a maxillary central defect model (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The laboratory models of different maxillary defects developed in this study have the potential to be used to compare conventional and digital workflow in prosthetic treatment procedures.