Table 2.

Laboratory findings

Article	Summary	Results
Goodacre et al., [10]	Comparison of the denture base adaptation of conventional (pack and press, pour, injection) and CAD/CAM techniques for fabricating CDs; 40 duplicated gypsum casts were created, and laser scanned; 10 specimens for each of the 4 techniques had been fabricated, hydrated for 24 h, and the intaglio surface laser scanned; using surface matching software, the scan file of each denture was superimposed on the scan file of the corresponding cast; measurements were made at 60 locations, providing evaluation of fit discrepancies at 5 areas; accuracy and reproducibility were assessed.	The CAD/CAM technique showed the best combination of accuracy and reproducibility;
Srinivasan et al., [11]	Comparison of trueness of CAD/CAM milled CDs with injection-molding and conventionally (flask-pack-press) manufactured CRDPs; 33 CDs were fabricated by three different technique, using a single master reference model and incubated in artificial saliva for 21 days; scanning of the intaglio surface was performed 7 days after processing, and again after 21 days in artificial saliva; the corresponding surfaces of the reference model and the 3D images of the dentures were super-imposed using a 3D-software; 5 specific regions of interest were defined and compared.	At baseline, there was no difference in the trueness of the total intaglio surfaces between the groups; after 21 days in artificial saliva, only CDs showed significant trueness; improved trueness for all techniques in most regions of interest.
Goodacre et al., [19]	Comparison of the denture tooth movement of pack-press, fluid resin, injection, CAD/CAM bonded, and CAD/CAM monolithic techniques; 50 dentures (10 for each technique); preprocessing and postprocessing scan files of the cameo surface of each denture were superimposed using surface-matching software; measurements were made at 64 locations, and tooth movement in a buccal, lingual, mesio-distal, and occlusal direction were evaluated.	The CAD/CAM monolithic technique was the most accurate and the most reproducible technique.
Steimassl et al., [20]	Comparison of methacrylate monomer release between CAD/CAM dentures (4 different CAD/CAM denture systems: Baltic Denture Systems, Vita VIONIC, Weiland Digital Dentures, Whole You Nexteeth) and conventional (heat-polymerised) dentures; denture weight, volume, and density were determined; after 7 days of water storage, the monomer release was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography.	No significant difference in released monomer between CAD/CAM and the conventional dentures.
Srinivasan et al., [21]	An in vitro evaluation and comparison of biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and surface roughness of a pre-polymerized PMMA resin for CAD/CAM CDs and a traditional heat-polymerized PMMA resin; Biocompatibility was assessed with cultivation of two types of cells (human primary osteoblasts and embryological mouse fibroblasts) on the substrate separately; mechanical properties were tested with the nanoindentation test, three-point bending test, and surface roughness test.	The tested CAD/CAM and heat-polymerised resins were equally biocompatible; CAD/CAM resins demonstrated improved mechanical properties (higher elastic modulus, ultimate strength, and toughness); higher roughness of the CAD/CAM resin specimens.