CAD/CAM versus traditional complete dentures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of patient‐ and clinician‐reported outcomes and costs

Abstract

AbstractStatement of ProblemComputer‐aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) have been increasingly used to enhance the patient and clinician experiences with removable complete dentures (CDs). Yet, evidence from systematic reviews is lacking to validate the clinical significance of these digital prostheses.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to compare CAD/CAM CDs with the traditional ones in terms of patient and clinician‐reported outcomes, post‐insertion adjustment visits and costs.Materials and MethodsAn electronic search of four databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL; last update: May 2022] was performed to retrieve clinical studies comparing CAD/CAM and traditional CDs. Two independent reviewers screened the articles, extracted data (methods and outcomes) and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. The following outcomes underwent meta‐analysis (random‐effects model): overall patient and clinician satisfaction, oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL), number of post‐insertion adjustment visits, as well as laboratory and total costs.ResultsThis review included 11 studies. Meta‐analysis revealed that CAD/CAM CDs are comparable to the traditional CDs in terms of overall patient satisfaction and OHRQoL. Clinician‐reported data depended on the manufacturing technique: whereas milled CDs performed better than traditional CDs in terms of clinician satisfaction and number of adjustments, 3D printed and traditional CDs were similar. Fabrication of CAD/CAM CDs required significantly less laboratory and overall costs than the traditional CDs.ConclusionsThere is some evidence showing that CAD/CAM CDs are at least comparable to traditional CDs. Further well‐designed randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the performance of specific CAD/CAM approaches for manufacturing CDs, however.