Cargando…

Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints

The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berntsen, Christian, Kleven, Martin, Heian, Marianne, Hjortsjö, Carl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30128331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491
_version_ 1783347907550773248
author Berntsen, Christian
Kleven, Martin
Heian, Marianne
Hjortsjö, Carl
author_facet Berntsen, Christian
Kleven, Martin
Heian, Marianne
Hjortsjö, Carl
author_sort Berntsen, Christian
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatment with splints over a period of 12 weeks. All subjects underwent both conventional alginate impression and intraoral digital scanning. Seven subjects received conventional manufactured stabilization splints (CM-SS), and seven subjects received CAD-CAM additive manufactured stabilization splints (AM-SS). 12 subjects completed the 12 weeks follow-up period. The subjects significantly preferred digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional alginate impression. There was a significant difference in VAS between CM-SS and AM-SS. The mean VAS result was 15 for AM-SS and 42 for CM-SS, 0 represented excellent comfort and 100 very uncomfortable. This was significant. Splint manufacturing method had no influence on treatment outcome. There was no significant difference in mean delta change for unassisted jaw opening from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, for CM-SS it was 2 mm difference and for AM-SS the difference was 3 mm. All subjects in both treatment groups showed improved oral function. In this study, the scanning procedure is more accepted by the subjects than alginate impressions, however the first procedure was more time consuming.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6095019
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60950192018-08-20 Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints Berntsen, Christian Kleven, Martin Heian, Marianne Hjortsjö, Carl Acta Biomater Odontol Scand Original Article The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital additive manufacturing of hard occlusal stabilization splints (SS) using technical and clinical parameters. 14 subjects were subjected to DC/TMD Axis I clinical examination protocol and Axis II questionnaire. The subjects underwent treatment with splints over a period of 12 weeks. All subjects underwent both conventional alginate impression and intraoral digital scanning. Seven subjects received conventional manufactured stabilization splints (CM-SS), and seven subjects received CAD-CAM additive manufactured stabilization splints (AM-SS). 12 subjects completed the 12 weeks follow-up period. The subjects significantly preferred digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional alginate impression. There was a significant difference in VAS between CM-SS and AM-SS. The mean VAS result was 15 for AM-SS and 42 for CM-SS, 0 represented excellent comfort and 100 very uncomfortable. This was significant. Splint manufacturing method had no influence on treatment outcome. There was no significant difference in mean delta change for unassisted jaw opening from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, for CM-SS it was 2 mm difference and for AM-SS the difference was 3 mm. All subjects in both treatment groups showed improved oral function. In this study, the scanning procedure is more accepted by the subjects than alginate impressions, however the first procedure was more time consuming. Taylor & Francis 2018-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6095019/ /pubmed/30128331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491 Text en © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Berntsen, Christian
Kleven, Martin
Heian, Marianne
Hjortsjö, Carl
Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title_full Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title_fullStr Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title_full_unstemmed Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title_short Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
title_sort clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30128331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491
work_keys_str_mv AT berntsenchristian clinicalcomparisonofconventionalandadditivemanufacturedstabilizationsplints
AT klevenmartin clinicalcomparisonofconventionalandadditivemanufacturedstabilizationsplints
AT heianmarianne clinicalcomparisonofconventionalandadditivemanufacturedstabilizationsplints
AT hjortsjocarl clinicalcomparisonofconventionalandadditivemanufacturedstabilizationsplints