Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug 13;4(1):81-89.
doi: 10.1080/23337931.2018.1497491. eCollection 2018.

Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints

Christian Berntsen  1 , Martin Kleven  2 , Marianne Heian  2 , Carl Hjortsjö  1
Affiliations

Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints

Christian Berntsen et al. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: CAD-CAM; Digital impression; hard occlusal stabilization splint.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Box-plot showing the median time recorded for alginate impressions and bite registration, scanning procedure and try-in extradition of the splints.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Box-plot showing the maximum unassisted and pain-free jaw opening at baseline, 6 weeks and at 12 weeks for both splint groups.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Box-plot showing the VAS results for all the recorded procedures, alginate impression, digital impression, try-in and overall treatment experience for both splint groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bell WE. Clinical management of temporomandibular disorders. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1982. p. 128–171.
    1. Parker MW, Holmes EK, Terezhalmy GT. Personality characteristics of patients with temporomandibular disorders: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. J Orofacial Pain. 1993;7:337–344. - PubMed
    1. Mersky H. Classification of chronic pain descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. Pain. 1986;27:1–225. - PubMed
    1. Klasser GD, Greene CS. Oral appliances in the management of temporomandibular disorders. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:212–223. - PubMed
    1. List T, Axelsson S. Management of TMD: evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:430–451. - PubMed