目的:为了评估生产3D打印的冠内修复体的可行性,薄超薄贴面,并比较它们的力学行为,准确度,生物,以及对当前应用的研磨修复体的染色敏感性。
方法:在没有语言限制的情况下,对截至2024年1月的相关记录进行了全面搜索。所有评估3D打印部分覆盖修复体的研究,包括嵌体,onlays,层压板,并取回了咬合贴面。
结果:网络搜索总共产生了1142条记录,在稍后阶段从网站添加了8条额外的记录。只有17条记录最终被纳入审查。包括的记录比较了3D打印;氧化铝基陶瓷和氧化锆陶瓷,二硅酸锂陶瓷,聚合物渗透陶瓷,聚醚醚酮(PEEK),树脂复合材料,和丙烯酸树脂到他们的CNC研磨类似物。汇总数据表明,可以生产厚度小于0.2mm的超薄修复体。3D打印的层压贴面和冠内修复体表现出优异的真实性,与碾磨修复体相比,边缘和内部配合更好(p<0.05)。然而,应该注意的是,材料和制备设计的选择可能会影响这些结果。在成本方面,与3D打印相关的初始投资和生产成本明显低于数控铣削技术。此外,3D打印也被证明更具时效性。
结论:使用增材制造技术生产厚度范围为0.1至0.2mm的修复体确实是可行的。这些修复的高精度,有助于他们抵抗龋齿发展的能力,超过最小临床阈值负荷的失败显著的边缘和可靠的粘附。然而,在3D打印的树脂修复体可以广泛用于临床应用之前,需要进一步改进,特别是在减少对污渍的敏感性方面。
结论:3D打印的冠内修复体和贴面更具时间和成本效益,更准确,并且可以为当前应用的数控铣削提供相当大的替代方案。一些限制仍然伴随着树脂材料,但这可以通过材料和印刷技术的进一步发展来克服。
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of producing 3D-printed intracoronal restorations, thin and ultrathin veneers, and to compare their mechanical behavior, accuracy, biological, and stain susceptibility to the currently applied milled restorations.
METHODS: The databases were comprehensively searched for relevant records up to January 2024 without language restrictions. All studies that assessed 3D-printed partial coverage restorations including inlays, onlays, laminate, and occlusal veneers were retrieved.
RESULTS: The web search yielded a total of 1142 records, with 8 additional records added from websites at a later stage. Only 17 records were ultimately included in the
review. The included records compared 3D-printed; alumina-based- and zirconia ceramics, lithium disilicate ceramics, polymer infiltrated ceramics, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), resin composites, and acrylic resins to their CNC milled analogs. The pooled data indicated that it is possible to produce ultrathin restorations with a thickness of less than 0.2 mm. 3D-printed laminate veneers and intracoronal restorations exhibited superior trueness, as well as better marginal and internal fit compared to milled restorations (p < 0.05). However, it should be noted that the choice of materials and preparation design may influence these outcomes. In terms of cost, the initial investment and production expenses associated with 3D printing were significantly lower than those of CNC milling technology. Additionally, 3D printing was also shown to be more time-efficient.
CONCLUSIONS: Using additive manufacturing technology to produce restorations with a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 mm is indeed feasible. The high accuracy of these restorations, contributes to their ability to resist caries progression, surpassing the minimum clinical threshold load of failure by a significant margin and reliable adhesion. However, before 3D-printed resin restorations can be widely adopted for clinical applications, further improvements are needed, particularly in terms of reducing their susceptibility to stains.
CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed intracoronal restorations and veneers are more time and cost-efficient, more accurate, and could provide a considerable alternative to the currently applied CNC milling. Some limitations still accompany the resin materials, but this could be overcome by further development of the materials and printing technology.