Comparison of the weight of conventionally heat-processed hollow and solid obturators and 3D printed hollow obturators

Harrison I Spatz; Jaclyn T Schmitz; Annu Singh; Marjorie Golden; Elyn Riedel; Joseph D Randazzo; Joseph M Huryn

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.030

Comparison of the weight of conventionally heat-processed hollow and solid obturators and 3D printed hollow obturators

J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Oct 30:S0022-3913(23)00645-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.030. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Harrison I Spatz¹, Jaclyn T Schmitz², Annu Singh³, Marjorie Golden⁴, Elyn Riedel⁵, Joseph D Randazzo⁶, Joseph M Huryn⁷

Affiliations

¹ Maxillofacial Prosthetics Fellow, Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
² Biomedical Engineer, Biomedical Systems, Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
³ Research Fellow, Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
⁴ Senior Dental Technician, Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
⁵ Senior Biostatistician, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
⁶ Attending, Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
⁷ Chief, Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.. Electronic address: hurynj@mskcc.org.

PMID: 37914607
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.030

Abstract

Statement of problem: The weight of larger obturators places increased stress on the supportive teeth and bearing tissue and allows gravity to act as a dislodging factor affecting the stability and retention of the prosthesis. However, whether conventionally processed and 3-dimensionally (3D) printed hollow obturators have similar reduced weights compared with solid obturators is unclear.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the weight difference between conventionally heat-processed complete denture obturators with and without hollowing and 3D printed obturators with a hollow bulb.

Material and methods: Obturators were fabricated as conventionally heat-processed solid obturators, conventionally heat-processed with a hollow obturator bulb, and 3D printed with a hollow obturator bulb. Nine obturator prostheses were fabricated for each type of Aramany Class I, Class II, and Class III defect. The weights of each of the 27 obturator prostheses were measured, and a statistical analysis was performed with exact versions of the Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (α=.05).

Results: Conventionally heat-processed solid obturators were significantly heavier than the conventionally heat-processed hollow (P<.001) or the 3D printed hollow obturators (P<.001). No significant difference (P=.222) was found between the conventionally heat-processed hollow and 3D printed hollow obturators. The decrease in weight was proportional to the size of the defect with the Aramany Class I defect having the largest differences in weight between the different fabrication methods, followed by Class II, and then Class III with a much smaller defect.

Conclusions: Additive manufacturing could be a suitable alternative to conventional techniques for the fabrication of a closed hollow obturator because of the comparable weights.