Marta Revilla-León1,2, Mehrad Sadeghpour3,4, Mutlu Özcan5. 1. Comprehensive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, TX. 2. Gradute Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain. 4. Private practice in Dallas, Dallas, TX. 5. Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the primary additive manufacturing (AM) technologies used to fabricate metals in implant dentistry and compare them to conventional casting and subtractive methods. METHODS: The literature on metal AM technologies was reviewed, and the AM procedures and their current applications in implant dentistry were collated and described. Collection of published articles about metal AM in dental field data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science searched. All studies related to AM technology description, analysis, and evaluation of applications in implant dentistry, including AM titanium (Ti) dental implants, customized Ti mesh for bone grafting techniques, cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) frameworks for implant impression procedures, and Co-Cr and Ti frameworks for dental implant-supported prostheses were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature has demonstrated the potential of AM technologies to fabricate dental implants, root-analog implants, and functionally graded implants; as well as the ability to fabricate customized meshes for bone grafting procedures. Metal AM technologies provide a reliable method to manufacture frameworks for implant impression procedures. Co-Cr and Ti AM frameworks for implant-supported prostheses provide a clinically acceptable discrepancy at the implant-prostheses interface. CONCLUSIONS: Additional clinical studies are required to assess the long-term clinical performance, biological and mechanical complications, and prosthetic restoration capabilities of additively manufactured dental implants. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate their long-term success and survival rates and biological and mechanical complications of AM implant-supported prostheses.
PURPOSE: To review the primary additive manufacturing (AM) technologies used to fabricate metals in implant dentistry and compare them to conventional casting and subtractive methods. METHODS: The literature on metal AM technologies was reviewed, and the AM procedures and their current applications in implant dentistry were collated and described. Collection of published articles about metal AM in dental field data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science searched. All studies related to AM technology description, analysis, and evaluation of applications in implant dentistry, including AM titanium (Ti) dental implants, customized Ti mesh for bone grafting techniques, cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) frameworks for implant impression procedures, and Co-Cr and Ti frameworks for dental implant-supported prostheses were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature has demonstrated the potential of AM technologies to fabricate dental implants, root-analog implants, and functionally graded implants; as well as the ability to fabricate customized meshes for bone grafting procedures. Metal AM technologies provide a reliable method to manufacture frameworks for implant impression procedures. Co-Cr and Ti AM frameworks for implant-supported prostheses provide a clinically acceptable discrepancy at the implant-prostheses interface. CONCLUSIONS: Additional clinical studies are required to assess the long-term clinical performance, biological and mechanical complications, and prosthetic restoration capabilities of additively manufactured dental implants. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate their long-term success and survival rates and biological and mechanical complications of AM implant-supported prostheses.
Authors: Robert Leven; Alexander Schmidt; Roland Binder; Marian Kampschulte; Jonas Vogler; Bernd Wöstmann; Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Hanna Nilsson Åhman; Lena Thorsson; Pelle Mellin; Greta Lindwall; Cecilia Persson Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.623