Impact of CAD/CAM Material and Bonding Protocol on the Bond Strength Between Denture Bases and Artificial Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To identify the most effective protocol for bonding denture bases and artificial teeth made with different computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials (milled and 3D-printed) and conventional heat-polymerized resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria and registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42021276084). An electronic search was performed independently by two examiners in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and OpenGrey databases for articles published up to and including December 2021. RESULTS: The electronic search returned 806 articles, and after duplicates were removed, 589 articles remained. Four articles met the eligibility criteria to be included in this study. After evaluating the different combinations of denture base materials and artificial teeth, it was found that IvoBase CAD Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) was effective for bonding CAD/CAM denture bases to prefabricated acrylic resin teeth, which showed no differences compared to the heat-polymerized resin denture base bonded to prefabricated acrylic resin teeth (χ2: 68.56; I2: 96%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The IvoBase CAD Bond bonding system can be used for the fabrication of CAD/CAM denture bases with prefabricated acrylic resin teeth.

Accuracy between intraoral and extraoral scanning: Three-dimensional deviation and effect of distance between implants from two scanning methods.

Aim: Evaluate the accuracy between the intraoral and extraoral scanning regarding the three dimensional (3D) deviation and distances between the implants, through 2 scanning methods. Settings and Design: An in vitro study. Materials and Methods: An edentulous mandibular model was used to install four implants and abutments, recommending 6 distances between the implants. Scans were performed using an intraoral (SI) and extraoral (SE) scanner for each studied group: Scanning with the scan bodies (SB) and device (SD) (n = 10). The files were imported into a surface evaluation program to assess 3D deviations and measure distances between implants. Statistical Analysis: Precision was assessed as the difference between files (Kruskal-Wallis test), while trueness was assessed from the difference between scans, applying the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney test. Results: As for the 3D deviations, SI showed accuracy, for the faces and positions of the implants in relation to the SE, in both scanning methods (P < 0.05). Regarding the capture of distances between implants, the SD scan obtained better trueness than the SB group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: We concluded that the type and scanning methods used did not influence the 3D deviations, while for distances, scanning with the device had better trueness.