Alotaibi Hanan N
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11433, Saudi Arabia.
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Feb 11;13(4):388. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13040388.
: This systematic review compares computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) 3D-printed complete dentures (CDs) with conventional ones in terms of patient satisfaction. : The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting criteria for systematic reviews were followed in conducting this systematic review. The study question was "What are the patient satisfaction outcomes of 3D-printed versus conventional CDs in edentulous patients?" according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across three databases (PubMed/Medline, Web of Science core collection, and Scopus; last update: 18 August 2024) to obtain clinical trials that compared traditional and 3D-printed CDs. The retrieved articles were screened, their data were extracted, and their quality was evaluated. : The initial search retrieved 803 publications; 12 were chosen for a thorough review, and 5 of them-4 randomized cross-over studies and 1 randomized three-parallel arm study-met the requirements for this systematic review. One study showed significant differences in five of nine patient denture satisfaction domains, positively favoring the conventional CDs. Two studies showed non-significant differences in satisfaction domains between the conventional and 3D-printed groups, except for aesthetics and pronunciation. On the contrary, the satisfaction scores in two other studies showed no significant difference between the conventional and 3D-printed denture groups. : The analysis of the included studies and evidence gathered demonstrates that CAD/CAM 3D-printed CDs seem to be comparable with conventional CDs in terms of overall patient satisfaction; however, 3D-printed CDs generate some concerns related to aesthetics and speech.
本系统评价从患者满意度方面比较了计算机辅助设计与计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）3D打印全口义齿（CDs）与传统全口义齿。：本系统评价遵循系统评价的PRISMA（系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目）报告标准。根据人群、干预措施、对照和结局（PICO）框架，研究问题为“无牙颌患者中3D打印与传统CDs的患者满意度结局如何？”。对三个数据库（PubMed/Medline、Web of Science核心合集和Scopus；最后更新时间：2024年8月18日）进行了全面的电子检索，以获取比较传统和3D打印CDs的临床试验。对检索到的文章进行筛选，提取数据并评估其质量。：初始检索获得803篇出版物；选择12篇进行全面审查，其中5篇——4项随机交叉研究和1项随机三平行组研究——符合本系统评价的要求。一项研究显示，在九个患者义齿满意度领域中的五个领域存在显著差异，传统CDs更具优势。两项研究显示，除美学和发音外，传统组和3D打印组在满意度领域无显著差异。相反，另外两项研究中的满意度评分显示，传统义齿组和3D打印义齿组之间无显著差异。：对纳入研究和收集的证据的分析表明，CAD/CAM 3D打印CDs在总体患者满意度方面似乎与传统CDs相当；然而，3D打印CDs引发了一些与美学和语音相关的问题。
