Dataset Information

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses.

Materials and methods

A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer-aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD-CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included.

Results

Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s-CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a-CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s-CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a-CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9-11.8 min), abutments (range 19.7-32.7 min) and crowns (range 11.1-37.6 min). The time for s-CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25 min. Post-processing (e.g. sintering) was a time-consuming process (up to 530 min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD-CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%).

Conclusions

No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.

SUBMITTER: Muhlemann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough miniscrews are widely used in orthodontic treatment as temporary anchorage devices, their correct and safe placement has attracted little attention. This study aimed to introduce a novel cone beam CT (CBCT) image-based computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) template for orthodontic miniscrew implantation and to evaluate the effectiveness of miniscrews implanted under the guidance of this template.MethodsThe CBCT scans of ten patients requiring miniscrews as anchorage were analyzed in NNT software to predetermine the insertion sites of miniscrew implants. The DICOM data of the scans, along with virtual miniscrews acquired in Solidworks software, were imported into Mimics software to construct three-dimensional (3D) images of teeth and bone and to determine the virtual position of miniscrews and 3D virtual templates were designed following consideration of the virtual implantation plans. A STL (Stereolithography) file of the virtual template was output, and the resin template was then fabricated with a stereolithographic appliance (SLA). 24 Miniscrews were then implanted guided by the template and clinical evaluation of their safety and stability, as well as their placement deviations, were made. A dental casts model and cephalometric analysis before and after orthodontic treatment were made to assess the dentomaxillofacial changes.ResultsAll 24 miniscrews had no contact with adjacent roots. 18 miniscrews had a grade I safety score and six had a grade II. The miniscrews were stable at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after implantation, although there was mild inflammation around two miniscrews. Implantation deviation of miniscrew in the crown was (1.03±0.65) and (1.26±0.72) mm in the apex, on average. Satisfactory dentomaxillofacial changes in 10 patients with these 24 miniscrews as anchorage were acquired.ConclusionsMiniscrews could be implanted in the targeted position safely and precisely when guided by the novel templates, and remained stable during orthodontic treatment. Patients treated with these miniscrews as anchorage in orthodontic treatment acquired satisfactory dentomaxillofacial changes.

Project description:IntroductionCustom insoles are a routine treatment for many foot pathologies, and the use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) is well established within clinical practice in the UK. The method of foot shape capture used to produce insoles varies throughout orthotic services. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of two common shape-capture techniques on patient-reported outcomes in people who require insoles for a foot or ankle pathology.Methods and analysisThis double-blinded randomised controlled trial will involve two intervention groups recruited from a National Health Service orthotic service. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive a pair of custom CAD/CAM insoles, manufactured either from a direct digital scan or a foam box cast of their feet and asked to wear the insoles for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) pain subdomain, recorded at baseline (immediately after receiving the intervention), 4, 8 and 12 weeks post intervention. Secondary outcome measures will include FHSQ foot function and foot health subdomains recorded at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. The Orthotic and Prosthetic User Survey Satisfaction with Device will be recorded at 12 weeks. The transit times associated with each arm will be measured as the number of days for each insole to be delivered after foot shape capture. Tertiary outcome measures will include participant recruitment and dropout rates, and intervention adherence measured as the daily usage of the insoles over 12 weeks. The change in FHSQ scores for the subdomains and insole usage will be compared between the groups and time points, and between group differences in time in transit, cost-time analysis and environmental impact will be compared.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority, London Stanmore Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0579). Study findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and webinars.Trial registration numberNCT05444192.

Project description:Recent data indicates limited awareness and compliance on infection prevention procedures by dental offices and by dental laboratories. Guidelines for infection prevention in dentistry have been published by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention since 2003; the section "IX-Special consideration" includes a subsection concerning the prevention in dental laboratories, but it has not been modernised in later versions to fit the needs of traditional and computer-aided technology. Traditional techniques required disinfecting items (impression, chewing waxes, and appliances) with well-suited products, which are also chosen for limiting impression changes or appliance deterioration. Effective procedures are available with difficulties. Some of these contain irritant or non-eco-friendly disinfectants. The transport of impression, to dental laboratories, is often delayed with limited precautions for limiting cross-infection. Gypsum casts are frequently contaminated mainly by bacteria and their antibiotic-resistant strains and even stored for long periods during dental implant supported restoration and orthodontic therapy, becoming a hidden source of infection. Nowadays, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology seems to be an interesting way to promote both business and safety, being more comfortable for patients and more accurate than traditional technology. A further advantage is easier infection prevention since, for the most part, mainly digital impression and casts are not a source of cross-infection and the transport of contaminated items is reduced and limited to try-in stages. Nevertheless, a peculiar feature is that a digital electronic file is of course unalterable, but may be ruined by a computer virus. Additionally, the reconditioning of scanner tips is determinant for the optical characteristics and long term use of the scanner, but information for its reconditioning from producers is often limited. This study focuses on some critical points including (a) insufficient guidelines, (b) choice of proper procedure for scanner reconditioning, and (c) data protection in relation to patient privacy.

Project description:This systematic review was aimed at gathering the clinical and technical applications of CAD/CAM technology for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses based on clinical cases. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic data search was performed. Human clinical studies utilizing digital planning, designing, and printing systems for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses for prosthetic rehabilitation of auricular defects were included. Following a data search, a total of 36 clinical human studies were included, which were digitally planned and executed through various virtual software to rehabilitate auricular defects. Preoperative data were collected mainly through computed tomography scans (CT scans) (55 cases); meanwhile, the most common laser scanners were the 3dMDface System (3dMD LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (6 cases) and the 3 Shape scanner (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (6 cases). The most common digital design software are Mimics Software (Mimics Innovation Suite, Materialize, Leuven, Belgium) (18 cases), Freeform software (Freeform, NC, USA) (13 cases), and 3 Shape software (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (12 cases). Surgical templates were designed and utilized in 35 cases to place 88 craniofacial implants in auricular defect areas. The most common craniofacial implants were Vistafix craniofacial implants (Entific Medical Systems, Goteborg, Sweden) in 22 cases. A surgical navigation system was used to place 20 craniofacial implants in the mastoid bone. Digital applications of CAD/CAM technology include, but are not limited to, study models, mirrored replicas of intact ears, molds, retentive attachments, customized implants, substructures, and silicone prostheses. The included studies demonstrated a predictable clinical outcome, reduced the patient's visits, and completed the prosthetic rehabilitation in reasonable time and at reasonable cost. However, equipment costs and trained technical staff were highlighted as possible limitations to the use of CAD/CAM systems.