COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL DIAGNOSTIC WAX-UPS IN THE AESTHETIC AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTABILITY OF DENTAL PROSTHESES
This study addresses the comparison between conventional methods of diagnostic wax-up and digital techniques applied to dentistry, focusing on the aesthetic and functional predictability of dental prostheses. Traditional diagnostic wax-up, performed manually with wax, allows professionals to plan and visualize the final result of the treatment, while digital wax-up, through specialized software, offers greater precision and flexibility in the process. The research explores the advantages and limitations of both methods, highlighting the effectiveness of digital wax-up in creating three-dimensional representations, which facilitates adjustments and modifications in planning. In addition, the study discusses how these methods contribute to the aesthetic and functional adaptation of prostheses, considering the complexity of clinical cases and the experience of professionals. Keywords: Diagnostic Wax-up, Digital Modeling, Dental Aesthetics, Prosthesis Functionality Dental Planning and CAD/CAM technology. The use of techniques such as mock-up and the preview of the final result are discussed as effective tools to increase patient satisfaction and improve clinical outcomes. Although digital waxing has advantages in terms of accuracy and agility, traditional waxing is still widely used due to its affordable cost and familiarity among professionals. This study concludes that, with the advancement of technologies and the reduction of costs, digital wax-cutting tends to become the predominant choice, but the choice between the methods must consider the clinical situation and the patient’s needs.
Authors
- Cesar Daniel Avendano Belandria
Publication Details
- Journal
- Revista CPAQV - Centro de Pesquisas Avançadas em Qualidade de Vida
- Published
- 2025-03-27
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.36692/v17n1-86r
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Dental materials and restorations
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 1.68