CAD/CAM vs conventional technique for fabrication of implant-supported frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorMello, Caroline Cantieri [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Jéssica Marcela de Luna [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorVerri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T16:20:51Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T16:20:51Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the marginal vertical misfit between implant-supported frameworks fabricated using CAD/CAM systems and the conventional technique (lost-wax casting). Materials and Methods: This review was performed according to PRISMA criteria and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017055685). An electronic search was performed independently by two examiners in the MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to find studies published up to April 2018. Results: The database search yielded 507 references. After removing duplicate references, 384 studies remained. Eleven in vitro studies were selected according to the eligibility criteria (inter-reader κ = 0.88). Nine different CAD/CAM systems were used to fabricate 172 frameworks of different materials, including zirconia, monolithic lithium disilicate, and metallic alloys. Subgroup analyses were performed for different types and retention systems of the frameworks. In the general analysis, marginal misfit observed with the CAD/CAM systems was lower than with the conventional method (P = .003), as was observed in the subgroup analysis for single-unit frameworks (P < .00001). For fixed (P = .89), cemented (P = .60), and screwed (P = .18) frameworks, no significant difference was observed between the evaluated techniques. Conclusion: The CAD/CAM systems showed improved marginal fit over the conventional lost-wax casting technique for fabricating single-unit frameworks; however, in the subgroup analyses, no difference was observed for the fixed implant-supported type or for the retention systems evaluated.en
dc.description.affiliationAraçatuba Dental School University Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Araçatuba campus Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics
dc.description.affiliationUnespAraçatuba Dental School University Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Araçatuba campus Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics
dc.description.sponsorshipConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
dc.format.extent182-192
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5616
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Prosthodontics, v. 32, n. 2, p. 182-192, 2019.
dc.identifier.doi10.11607/ijp.5616
dc.identifier.issn0893-2174
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85062886947
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/188839
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Prosthodontics
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.titleCAD/CAM vs conventional technique for fabrication of implant-supported frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studiesen
dc.typeResenha

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos - Materiais Odontológicos e Prótese - FOA