3D 打印与减法制造技术制作的种植体支持修复体边缘适合精度的比较：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Accuracy of marginal fit of an implant-supported framework fabricated by 3D printing versus subtractive manufacturing technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
机构信息
Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, People's College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Bhopal, India.
Head of the Department and Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, People's College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Bhopal, India.
出版信息
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Feb;129(2):301-309. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.010. Epub 2021 Jun 17.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Evidence comparing additive 3-dimensional printing (3DP) with subtractive milling for implant-supported frameworks is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the marginal fit and accuracy of complete arch implant-supported frameworks (CA), implant-retained fixed partial dentures (IRFPDs), single implant crowns (SICs), and interim implant-retained restorations (IIRRs) by using additive manufacturing (AM) and subtractive manufacturing (SM) methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for articles published up to August 2020. The authors acquired the data and evaluated the articles, and the final selection of articles was made according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated, and meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed in the selected studies.
RESULTS
The database search resulted in 960 articles. After removing duplicate articles (410 studies), the titles and abstracts were screened in detail, and 10 in vitro studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis according to the eligibility criteria. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare the 3DP versus the SM technique for different types of implant-supported frameworks (IRFPDs, SICs, IIRRs, and CA). In the IRFPDs analysis, the marginal fit accuracy of the 3DP systems was higher than that with the subtractive manufacturing method (P<.001). In the subgroup analysis of SIC frameworks (P=.55) and CA (P=.67) frameworks, no significant difference was observed in the assessed techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
The marginal fit of implant-supported frameworks manufactured by AM or SM methods is in the clinically acceptable range.
问题陈述
缺乏比较 3D 打印（3DP）与减材铣削在植入物支持框架方面的证据。
目的
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较使用增材制造（AM）和减材制造（SM）方法制造的全弓种植体支持框架（CA）、种植体保留固定局部义齿（IRFPDs）、单牙种植体冠（SICs）和临时种植体保留修复体（IIRRs）的边缘适合度和准确性。
材料和方法
在 PubMed、ScienceDirect、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Library 中进行了电子搜索，以获取截至 2020 年 8 月发表的文章。作者获取数据并评估文章，最终根据纳入和排除标准选择文章。使用非随机研究方法学指数（MINORS）量表评估纳入研究的质量。评估了异质性，并在选定的研究中进行了亚组分析的荟萃分析。
结果
数据库搜索产生了 960 篇文章。在去除重复文章（410 篇）后，详细筛选了标题和摘要，并根据入选标准选择了 10 项体外研究进行定性分析，9 项进行定量分析。进行了亚组分析，以比较不同类型的种植体支持框架（IRFPDs、SICs、IIRRs 和 CA）的 3DP 与 SM 技术。在 IRFPDs 分析中，3DP 系统的边缘适合精度高于减法制造方法（P<.001）。在 SIC 框架（P=.55）和 CA 框架（P=.67）的亚组分析中，未观察到评估技术之间的显著差异。
结论
使用 AM 或 SM 方法制造的种植体支持框架的边缘适合度在临床可接受范围内。
Zotero 插件