An interventional study of Heat-Polymerised Maxillary Complete Denture Base and 3D-Printed Maxillary Complete Denture Base in Complete Edentulism, sponsored by Arab International University. Completed at 1 site in Syria. Open to participants aged 45 Years to 60 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-02.
Sponsored by Arab International University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This study compared two methods of making bases for upper complete dentures: three-dimensional (3D) printing and conventional heat curing. A denture base rests on the gums and supports the artificial teeth. The aim was to determine whether the manufacturing method affected retention, stability and support: how well the base resisted being dislodged, resisted horizontal or rocking movements, and resisted movement towards the supporting tissues under pressure.
Sixteen participants with no remaining upper teeth took part. Two denture bases were made for each participant from the same dental impression, one using each manufacturing method. The order in which the bases were tested was randomly determined by computer. The bases were labelled with codes so that two independent examiners were not informed of the manufacturing method. Each examiner assessed anterior and posterior retention, front-to-back and lateral stability, and front-to-back and lateral support using predefined rating scales. Scores were compared within each participant, and agreement between the examiners was also evaluated.
This study compared the retention, stability and support of 3D-printed and heat-polymerised maxillary complete denture bases in 16 participants. Eligible participants had been completely edentulous in the maxilla for at least six months and had well-healed residual ridges, healthy supporting mucosa and normal salivary flow.
Two bases were fabricated for each participant from the same definitive impression. The conventional base was produced by heat polymerisation on the master cast. The printed base was digitally designed from a scan of the cast, printed from photopolymer resin, washed and post-cured. Both bases had a nominal thickness of 3 mm and incorporated testing handles.
Assessment order was computer-randomised. Two independent prosthodontists evaluated coded bases without being informed of the fabrication technique. After 30 seconds of intraoral seating, each base was assessed for anterior and posterior retention, anteroposterior and lateral stability, and anteroposterior and lateral support. Retention and stability were rated on four-point scales and support on a three-point scale, with higher scores indicating better performance.
Between-technique comparisons used the mean examiner ratings and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm adjustment. Inter-examiner agreement was evaluated using exact percentage agreement and linearly weighted Gwet's AC2.
Arab International University is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants underwent clinical assessment with the 3D-printed maxillary denture base first, followed by the heat-polymerised base. Both bases were fabricated from the same definitive impression. Two masked examiners independently assessed retention, stability and support for each base.
Device: Heat-Polymerised Maxillary Complete Denture Base · Device: 3D-Printed Maxillary Complete Denture Base
Participants underwent clinical assessment with the heat-polymerised maxillary denture base first, followed by the 3D-printed base. Both bases were fabricated from the same definitive impression. Two masked examiners independently assessed retention, stability and support for each base.
Device: Heat-Polymerised Maxillary Complete Denture Base · Device: 3D-Printed Maxillary Complete Denture Base
A maxillary acrylic denture base fabricated directly on the master cast using conventional flasking and resin packing. The base had a nominal thickness of 3 mm and incorporated three testing handles. Processing involved a water bath at 73°C for two hours.
A maxillary denture base digitally designed from a laboratory scan of the master cast and fabricated from photopolymer resin using LCD-based stereolithography. The base had a nominal thickness of 3 mm and incorporated three testing handles. Printing was followed by alcohol washing and additional light polymerisation.
Anterior Retention of the Maxillary Denture Base
Anterior retention was independently rated by two masked examiners on a four-point scale: 1 = no retention with spontaneous displacement; 2 = poor retention with minimal resistance to dislodgement; 3 = moderate retention; and 4 = good retention with maximal resistance to dislodgement. Higher scores indicated better retention. The mean of both examiners' scores was used for comparison between fabrication techniques.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
Posterior Retention of the Maxillary Denture Base
Posterior retention was independently rated by two masked examiners on a four-point scale: 1 = no retention with spontaneous displacement; 2 = poor retention with minimal resistance to dislodgement; 3 = moderate retention; and 4 = good retention with maximal resistance to dislodgement. Higher scores indicated better retention. The mean of both examiners' scores was used for comparison between fabrication techniques.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
Anteroposterior Stability of the Maxillary Denture Base
Two masked examiners independently assessed anteroposterior stability using a four-point scale: 1 = displacement under light force; 2 = displacement under moderate force; 3 = displacement only under strong force; and 4 = stability maintained under strong force. Higher scores indicated better stability. The mean of the two examiners' ratings was used for comparison.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
Lateral Stability of the Maxillary Denture Base
Two masked examiners independently assessed lateral stability using a four-point scale: 1 = displacement under light force; 2 = displacement under moderate force; 3 = displacement only under strong force; and 4 = stability maintained under strong force. Higher scores indicated better stability. The mean of the two examiners' ratings was used for comparison.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
Anteroposterior Support of the Maxillary Denture Base
Two masked examiners independently assessed anteroposterior support under pressure directed towards the supporting tissues. A three-point scale was used: 1 = pronounced rocking; 2 = moderate rocking; and 3 = no or minimal rocking. Higher scores indicated better support. The mean of the two examiners' ratings was used for comparison.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
Lateral Support of the Maxillary Denture Base
Two masked examiners independently assessed lateral support under pressure directed towards the supporting tissues. A three-point scale was used: 1 = pronounced rocking; 2 = moderate rocking; and 3 = no or minimal rocking. Higher scores indicated better support. The mean of the two examiners' ratings was used for comparison.
Time frame: At the clinical assessment of each denture base, following 30 seconds of intraoral seating.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Arab International University