MATERIALS AND METHODS: An auricular prosthesis, a complete denture, and anterior and posterior crowns were constructed using conventional methods and laser scanned to create computerized 3D meshes. The meshes were optimized independently by four computer-aided design software (Meshmixer, Meshlab, Blender, and SculptGL) to 100%, 90%, 75%, 50%, and 25% levels of original file size. Upon optimization, the following parameters were virtually evaluated and compared; mesh vertices, file size, mesh surface area (SA), mesh volume (V), interpoint discrepancies (geometric similarity based on virtual point overlapping), and spatial similarity (volumetric similarity based on shape overlapping). The influence of software and optimization on surface area and volume of each prosthesis was evaluated independently using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: There were clear observable differences in vertices, file size, surface area, and volume. The choice of software significantly influenced the overall virtual parameters of auricular prosthesis [SA: F(4,15) = 12.93, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 9.33, R2 = 0.64, p < 0.001] and complete denture [SA: F(4,15) = 10.81, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 3.50, R2 = 0.34, p = 0.030] across optimization levels. Interpoint discrepancies were however limited to <0.1mm and volumetric similarity was >97%.
CONCLUSION: Open-source mesh optimization of smaller dental prostheses in this study produced minimal loss of geometric and volumetric details. SculptGL models were most influenced by the amount of optimization performed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculated sample size was 128 subjects. The crown width/height, arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width of the maxilla and mandible were obtained via digital calliper (Mitutoyo, Japan). A total of 4325 variables were measured. The sex differences in the crown width and height were evaluated. Analysis of variance was applied to evaluate the differences between arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups.
RESULTS: Males had significantly larger mean values for crown width and height than females (P ≤ 0.05) for maxillary and mandibular arches, both. There were no significant differences observed for the crown width/height ratio in various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width (intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar) groups (P ≤ 0.05) in maxilla and mandible, both.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate sexual disparities in the crown width and height. Crown width and height has no significant relation to various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups of maxilla and mandible. Thus, it may be helpful for orthodontic and prosthodontic case investigations and comprehensive management.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a novel instrument, termed the questionnaire on perceived prosthodontic treatment needs (PPTN), that assesses perceived prosthodontic treatment needs in adults.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The PPTN was developed following a literature review, consultation with healthcare workers, and patient interviews. It included 15 questions and a self-rated need for prosthodontic treatment, categorized on a Likert scale. A cross-sectional descriptive study was completed on 193 dental patients seeking or receiving prosthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Three perceived prosthodontic treatment need factors were identified (psychosocial impact, esthetic concern, and function) by using exploratory factor analysis. A higher PPTN score indicated greater perceived prosthodontic treatment needs. The identified factors represent 67.8% of the variance with eigenvalues of >1. The PPTN had a high degree of internal consistency and reliability, as the final questionnaire received a Cronbach alpha of 0.75 and an intraclass coefficient of 0.75 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.68 to 0.80 (F(192, 576)=3.94, P