Pilot clinical comparison of three occlusal splint fabrication techniques: A preliminary study

Abstract

To compare laboratory production time, clinical adjustment time, and patient-reported comfort of three occlusal splint fabrication techniques (heat-cured acrylic, vacuum-adapted acrylic, and CAD-CAM 3D-printed splints) in a pilot feasibility study. Three participants each received three splints, one fabricated with each technique. Laboratory production time, chairside adjustment time, and comfort (VAS) were recorded. Vacuum-adapted splints required the shortest laboratory production time (mean = 92 min, SD = 25.35). Heat-cured splints required longer processing (mean = 114 min, SD = 6.08). The CAD-CAM splints showed the longest total workflow duration (mean = 133 min, SD = 6.08), although they required less manual technician work. Intraoral adjustment times were similar between heat-cured and vacuum-adapted splints (means = 28 min and 26.66 min, respectively). None of the CAD-CAM splints seated fully at delivery, preventing proper adjustment. Vacuum-adapted splints received the highest comfort scores. Within the limitations of this pilot study with three participants, vacuum-adapted and heat-cured splints showed clinically acceptable performance and comparable adjustment times. CAD-CAM splints reduced manual workload but suffered from significant seating and fit issues, indicating the need for workflow refinement before clinical implementation. Even as splint fabrication is moving towards a more digital workflow, the old methods, especially vacuum-adapted splints, continue to deliver timely and comfortable results to patients. Further studies with more participants need to be done so that there can be a clear digital splint fabrication workflow.