Digital versus conventional workflow for the fabrication of physical casts for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review of accuracy.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

A consensus on the accuracy of additively manufactured casts in comparison with those fabricated by using conventional techniques for fixed dental prostheses is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of additively manufactured casts for tooth- or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in comparison with that of gypsum casts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CDR42020161006). Eight databases were searched in December 2019 and updated in September 2020. Studies evaluating the dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured casts for fixed dental prostheses in comparison with that of gypsum casts were included. An adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies (Checklist for Reporting In vitro Studies guidelines) was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eight studies evaluating tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis casts and 7 studies evaluating implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis casts were eligible for this review. Gypsum casts showed greater accuracy (trueness and precision) in most studies, although additively manufactured casts also yielded highly precise data. One study was associated with a low risk of bias, 9 with a moderate risk of bias, and 5 with a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro studies showed that additively manufactured casts and gypsum casts share similar accuracy within the acceptable range for the fabrication of casts. The quality of scanned data, additive manufacture technology, printing settings, and postprocessing procedures plays an essential role in the accuracy of additively manufactured casts. Clinical studies are required to confirm these findings.