目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是比较制造方法的影响(常规,减法,和添加剂程序)和制造三项式(技术,打印机,和材料组合)在钴铬(Co-Cr)牙齿支撑框架的边缘和内部配合上。
方法:在五个数据库中进行了电子系统评价:MEDLINE/PubMed,Embase,科学世界,科克伦,还有Scopus.包括报告牙齿支撑的Co-Cr增材制造(AM)框架的边缘和内部差异的研究。两位作者通过应用JoannaBriggs研究所准实验研究关键评估清单独立完成了研究的质量评估。为解决缺乏共识的问题,咨询了第三位审查员。
结果:总共包含了31篇文章,并根据评估方法进行了分类:制造准确性,双重或三重扫描方法,立体显微镜,光学坐标测量机,microCT,轮廓仪,和硅胶复制品。创建了六个子组:3D系统,Bego,概念激光,EOS,Kulzer,还有Sisma.由于异质性和可用数据有限,只有硅胶复制组被考虑进行荟萃分析.荟萃分析显示平均边际差异为91.09μm(I2=95%,P<.001)在常规组中,77.48μm(I2=99%,P<.001)在铣削组中,和82.92μm(I2=98%,P<.001)在打印组中。此外,平均内部差异为111.29μm(I2=94%,P<.001)在常规铸造组中获得,121.96μm(I2=100%,P<.001)在铣削组中,和121.25μm(I2=99%,P<.001)在打印组中。
结论:制造方法和选择性激光熔化(SLM)金属制造三态并不影响Co-Cr框架的边缘和内部差异,用于制造牙齿支撑的修复体。
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the influence of fabrication method (conventional, subtractive, and additive procedures) and manufacturing trinomial (technology, printer, and material combination) on the marginal and internal fit of cobaltchromium (Co-Cr) tooth-supported frameworks.
METHODS: An electronic systematic review was performed in five data bases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Studies that reported the marginal and internal discrepancies of tooth-supported Co-Cr additive manufacturing (AM) frameworks were included. Two authors independently completed the quality assessment of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. A third examiner was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS: A total of 31 articles were included and classified based on the evaluation method: manufacturing accuracy, the dual- or triple-scan method, stereomicroscope, optical coordinate measurement machine, microCT, profilometer, and silicone replica. Six subgroups were created: 3D Systems, Bego, Concept Laser, EOS, Kulzer, and Sisma. Due to the heterogeneity and limited data available, only the silicone replica group was considered for meta-analysis. The metaanalysis showed a mean marginal discrepancy of 91.09 μm (I2 = 95%, P < .001) in the conventional group, 77.48 μm (I2 = 99%, P < .001) in the milling group, and 82.92 μm (I2 = 98%, P < .001) in the printing group. Additionally, a mean internal discrepancy of 111.29 μm (I2 = 94%, P < .001) was obtained in the conventional casting group, 121.96 μm (I2 = 100%, P < .001) in the milling group, and 121.25 μm (I2 = 99%, P < .001) in the printing group.
CONCLUSIONS: Manufacturing method and selective laser melting (SLM) metal manufacturing trinomial did not impact the marginal and internal discrepancies of Co-Cr frameworks for the fabrication of tooth-supported restorations.