Accuracy assessment of digitally and conventionally manufactured obturator frameworks for palatal defects: An in-vitro study

compare the trueness and precision of obturator frameworks fabricated using conventional, digital-analogue, and digital workflows based on a standardized maxillary model with a palatal defect. A master model with a unilateral palatal defect was used to fabricate 30 obturator frameworks (n=10/group). Group 1 (conventional) used two-stage PVS impressions, stone casts, and conventional Co/Cr casting. Group 2 (digital-analogue) used CBCT–intraoral scan composites to generate 3D-printed models for conventional casting . Group 3 (fully digital) involved digital design and metal SLS printing. All frameworks and models were desktop-scanned. Precision was assessed by within-group superimposition of framework scans, and trueness by superimposition onto the reference model using surface-matching software. Statistically significant differences in trueness were observed between groups ( p < 0.001). The digital workflow exhibited the highest overall trueness (mean deviation: 0.05 ± 0.16 mm), followed by the digital-analogue (0.08±0.15 mm) and conventional methods (0.11 ± 0.17 mm). Tooth-level trueness was significantly better in digital workflows ( p < 0.001), while soft-tissue level comparisons showed no significant difference between digital-analogue and conventional techniques. Fully digital workflows demonstrated superior trueness and precision compared to conventional and digital-analogue methods. Digital obturator fabrication offers a promising alternative to traditional techniques for improved fit and clinical predictability.