International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology
Volume 16, Issue 4s

Comparative Analysis Of Digital Smile Design And Conventional Wax-Up In Prosthodontic Treatment Planning

Dr Suvidha Patil1*, Dr. Shreya Khanna2, Dr. Mohammed Ismail B3, Dr. Peter S4, D Priyanka B5

1*Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, KAHER'S KLE VK Institute of Dental Sciences, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

(Corresponding Author)
2Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar
3Professor, Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Specialization of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Government Dental College & Research Institute, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka-560041, India, State: Karnataka, Pincode: 583101
ORCID ID: 0009-0001-6362-0902
4Post Graduate, Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Mahe Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Pondicherry University
5Intern, Department of Dentistry, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Bhubaneswar, 721024, India

ABSTRACT

Title: Comparative Analysis of Digital Smile Design and Conventional Wax-Up in Prosthodontic Treatment Planning

Background: Accurate treatment planning is essential for predictable esthetic and functional outcomes in prosthodontics. Conventional diagnostic wax-up has long been considered the standard, but Digital Smile Design (DSD) has developed as a modern alternative offering enhanced visualization and communication. This study compared DSD and wax-up with respect to accuracy, efficiency, reproducibility, patient satisfaction, and professional feedback.

Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed on 50 patients requiring anterior esthetic rehabilitation. Participants were allocated to Group A (conventional wax-up) or Group B (DSD). Accuracy was assessed through superimposition analysis, time efficiency was measured in minutes, reproducibility was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and patient satisfaction was determined using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Clinician and technician feedback was also recorded. Statistical analysis was achieved with significance set at p < 0.05.

Conclusions: DSD demonstrated significantly superior performance compared with wax-up. Mean deviations were lower for DSD in tooth width (0.28 ± 0.15 mm vs. 0.62 ± 0.21 mm), midline position (0.20 ± 0.10 mm vs. 0.54 ± 0.19 mm), and gingival margin (0.22 ± 0.12 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.17 mm; p < 0.001). Planning time was reduced by nearly half with DSD (71.2 ± 9.6 min vs. 132.4 ± 12.8 min; p < 0.001), and reproducibility was higher (ICC > 0.90 vs. 0.76–0.82). Patient satisfaction scores favored DSD for esthetics (9.0 vs. 7.1), comprehension (8.9 vs. 7.4), and confidence in outcomes (9.1 vs. 7.0; p < 0.001). Clinician and technician evaluations similarly highlighted its ease of use, predictability, and communication benefits. These findings establish DSD as a more accurate, efficient, reproducible, and patient-centered methodology than conventional wax-up in prosthodontic treatment planning.

Keywords: Digital Smile Design, Diagnostic wax-up, Prosthodontic treatment planning, Accuracy and reproducibility, Patient satisfaction, Esthetic dentistry

How to cite this article: Patil S, Khanna S, Ismail B M, S P, B DP, Comparative Analysis Of Digital Smile Design And Conventional Wax-Up In Prosthodontic Treatment Planning. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(4s): 888-896; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.4s.103

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None