目的:本系统综述旨在提供有关准确性的全面见解,fit,植入物支持的计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)假体的机械特性,专注于铣削和3D打印方法。
方法:研究问题集中在种植体支持的假牙上,比较不同的制造技术(常规,碾磨,和3D打印),以确定影响CAD-CAM植入物支撑假体的机械性能和配合的不同因素。资格标准包括涉及植入物支持的修复体的研究,清晰的制造技术报告,以及过去十年的英文出版物。搜索是在三个主要数据库中进行的,MEDLINE,Scopus,和2023年9月的WebofScience。出版物详细信息,研究特点,并描述了每个纳入研究的方法学细节.
结果:在最初的1964年文章中,581符合纳入标准,104项研究纳入最终定性分析.大多数研究是在美国进行的,土耳其,和巴西。14项研究评估了准确性参数,而四项研究集中在力学特性上。研究揭示了机械性能以及边缘和内部配合的可变性,制造方法影响假体的结构完整性和应力分布。
结论:研究结果表明,数字化制造工作流程,铣削和3D打印,对于植入物支撑的修复体,可以产生可接受的特性,而在配合和准确性方面的变化最小。值得注意的是,3D打印和混合技术在边缘配合和应力分布等特定方面显示出优势。然而,与传统方法相比,研磨的假体在弯曲强度和抗断裂性方面提供了更好的结果。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现在临床环境中。
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to provide comprehensive insights on the accuracy, fit, and mechanical characteristics of implant-supported computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) prostheses, with a focus on milled and 3D-printed approaches.
METHODS: The research question focused on implant-supported dental prostheses, comparing different manufacturing techniques (conventional, milled, and 3D-printed) to determine the different factors affecting the mechanical properties and fit of the CAD-CAM implant-supported prosthesis. The eligibility criteria encompassed studies involving implant-supported restorations, clear reporting of manufacturing techniques, and English-language publications from the last decade. The search was conducted across three main databases, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science in September 2023. Publication details, study characteristics, and methodological details of each included study were described.
RESULTS: Of the initial 1964 articles, 581 met the inclusion criteria, and 104 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States, Turkey, and Brazil. Fourteen studies evaluated accuracy parameters, while four studies focused on mechanical characteristics. The studies revealed variability in mechanical properties and marginal and internal fit, with fabrication methods impacting the structural integrity and stress distribution of the prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that digital manufacturing workflows, both milling and 3D printing, yield acceptable properties for implant-supported restorations with minimal variations in fit and accuracy. Notably, 3D printing and hybrid techniques demonstrate advantages in specific aspects like marginal fit and stress distribution. However, the milled prosthesis provided superior results in flexural strength and fracture resistance compared to conventional methods. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in clinical settings.