Suppr超能文献

金属、陶瓷或聚合物增材制造的固定种植体支持的牙修复体的准确性:系统评价。

Accuracy of Fixed Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses Additively Manufactured by Metal, Ceramic, or Polymer: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Private Practice, Digitorum Research Center, Vilnius, Lithuania.

出版信息

J Prosthodont. 2022 Mar;31(S1):70-87. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13449.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Additive manufacturing (AM) in prosthodontics is used as an alternative to casting or milling. Various techniques and materials are available for the additive manufacturing of the fixed and removable tooth-supported restorations, but there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of AM fixed implant-supported prostheses. Recent studies investigated the accuracy of ceramic AM prostheses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of additively manufactured metal, ceramic or polymers, and screw- or cement-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two calibrated investigators performed an electronic search of relevant publications in the English language following selected PICOS criteria and using a well-defined search strategy (latest search date-1st of June, 2021). Based on the exclusion criteria (no control group, less than five samples per group, 3D printing of the implant abutment part, only subjective evaluation of accuracy, etc.) studies were not included in the review. Quantitative data of accuracy evaluation such as marginal gap, strain analysis, and linear measurements was extracted and interpreted. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of methodological bias of all included studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen in vitro studies were selected for the final analysis. Six of the selected studies evaluated screw-retained restorations and 10 cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Only 4 publications concluded that AM restorations were more accurate than conventionally made (cast or milled) ones. The most common finding was that AM restorations were more accurate than cast and demonstrated less or similar accuracy compared to milled ones (n = 10 studies). Detected marginal discrepancies mean values of the AM prosthesis varied from 23 to more than 200 µm, but most of them were categorized as clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

AM implant-supported fixed prostheses demonstrate similar accuracy compared to conventional and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing techniques in vitro. Detected inaccuracies of AM restorations do not exceed clinically acceptable limits. Clinical studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to show the reliability of AM prostheses.

摘要

目的

增材制造(AM)在修复学中用作铸造或铣削的替代方法。有多种技术和材料可用于制造固定和可摘牙齿支持修复体,但关于 AM 固定种植体支持修复体的准确性缺乏证据。最近的研究调查了陶瓷 AM 修复体的准确性。因此,本系统评价的目的是评估增材制造的金属、陶瓷或聚合物以及螺钉或水泥固位的固定种植体支持修复体的准确性。

材料和方法

两名经过校准的研究人员根据选定的 PICOS 标准并使用明确的搜索策略(最新搜索日期为 2021 年 6 月 1 日)进行了相关文献的电子搜索。根据排除标准(无对照组、每组少于 5 个样本、3D 打印种植体基台部分、仅对准确性进行主观评估等),未将研究纳入综述。提取并解释了准确性评估的定量数据,如边缘间隙、应变分析和线性测量。使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估所有纳入研究的方法学偏倚风险。

结果

最终分析中选择了 16 项体外研究。选择的研究中有 6 项评估螺钉固位修复体,10 项评估水泥固位种植体支持修复体。只有 4 项出版物得出结论,AM 修复体比传统制造(铸造或铣削)的修复体更准确。最常见的发现是 AM 修复体比铸造修复体更准确,并且与铣削修复体相比,显示出更小或相似的准确性(n = 10 项研究)。检测到的边缘差异平均值 AM 修复体的差异值为 23 至 200 µm 以上,但大多数被归类为临床可接受。

结论

在体外,AM 种植体支持的固定修复体与传统和计算机辅助设计与计算机辅助制造技术具有相似的准确性。检测到的 AM 修复体的不准确之处并未超过临床可接受的限度。需要进行具有更长随访期的临床研究,以展示 AM 修复体的可靠性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验