Syndromes/Craniofacial Anomalies
Riva t. walker, DDS
Dental Resdient
University of Texas — Houston, Houston, TX
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
HOUSTON, Texas, United States
Bhavani Acharya, DDS
Program Director
UT School of Dentistry at Houston
Houston, Texas, United States
Brett T. Chiquet, DDS, PhD
Associate Professor and Director of Research
UTHealth Houston School of Dentistry
University of Texas School of Dentistry
Houston, Texas, United States
Michelle Thompson, DDS
University of Texas Health Science Center Houston
Fred Kasper, PhD
University of Texas Health Science Center Houston
Bhavani Acharya, DDS
Program Director
UT School of Dentistry at Houston
Houston, Texas, United States
Brett T. Chiquet, DDS, PhD
Associate Professor and Director of Research
UTHealth Houston School of Dentistry
University of Texas School of Dentistry
Houston, Texas, United States
Purpose: The aim of this pilot study was to determine the accuracy of digital fabrication compared to conventional fabrication of nasoalveolar molding appliances to treat infants born with cleft lip and palate.
Methods: Conventional and digital impressions were obtained on 5 infants born with cleft lip and palate. Custom impressions were taken using a custom tray and Alluwax. Digital impressions were obtained using the TRIOS 3Shape scanner. Conventional and digital NAMs were fabricated. Landmarks were measured on both models and NAMs by two research team members and compared using paired Student’s t-test, with P-value < .05 considered significant.
Results: All cast measurements (arch length, external arch width, internal arch width, arch circumference, cleft space width) were significantly different comparing stone versus 3D- printed (P < .05). Average differences between the 2 copies of each case cast varied between 2-5mm. NAM arch length was significant comparing PMMA versus 3D- printed (P=.008) but not internal or external arch width (P>.05) Average differences between the 2 copies of each case NAM varied between 0.01 and 4.8mm). Traditional fabricated NAMs fit on all 3D printed casts.
Conclusion: Although variations exist between the stone and 3D printed casts, the ability of traditionally fabricated NAMs to fit on 3D printed casts demonstrated that these differences were not clinically significant.