Premium
Survival and complications of computer aided‐designing and computer‐aided manufacturing vs. conventionally fabricated implant‐supported reconstructions: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Harder Sönke,
Kern Matthias
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01778.x
Subject(s) - dentistry , implant , medicine , confidence interval , dental prosthesis , cad , medline , survival rate , orthodontics , surgery , engineering drawing , engineering , political science , law
Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the internationally published survival and complication rates of implant‐supported computer‐aided designing (CAD) and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM)‐fabricated restorations and to compare them with those of conventionally fabricated implant‐supported restorations. Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on CAD–CAM fabricated implant‐supported restorations with a mean follow‐up time of at least 1 year. Failure and complication rates were evaluated and descriptive statistics were performed. Results: An electronic MEDLINE search revealed four studies reporting on implant‐supported CAD–CAM fabricated restorations. The cumulative 5‐year survival rate of implants supporting full‐arch‐fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) ranged from 81.4% to 95.6%. Reported survival rates of implants supporting all‐ceramic single crowns (SCs) were 100% [95% confidence interval (CI): 92.4–100]. The cumulative 5‐year survival rate for full‐arch FDPs ranged from 72.2% to 100%. Reported cumulative 5‐year survival rates for all‐ceramic SCs were 100% (95% CI: 92.4–100%). Technical complications were reported in two of the four selected studies and the estimated annual failure rate for chipping/fracture of the veneering material was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.06–3.06) for implant‐supported all‐ceramic SCs and 3.61 (95% CI: 2.05–6.36) for implant‐supported FDPs. Conclusions: Only a small number of clinical studies reporting on implant‐supported CAD–CAM fabricated restorations exists which makes a scientifically valid comparison with conventionally fabricated restorations impossible.