Do 3D-Printed and Milled Denture Bases Differ in Microbial Activity and Adhesion? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Sarah Arzani , Erfan Khorasani , Aida Mokhlesi , Shima Azadian , Safoura Ghodsi , Seyed Ali Mosaddad
{"title":"Do 3D-Printed and Milled Denture Bases Differ in Microbial Activity and Adhesion? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Sarah Arzani ,&nbsp;Erfan Khorasani ,&nbsp;Aida Mokhlesi ,&nbsp;Shima Azadian ,&nbsp;Safoura Ghodsi ,&nbsp;Seyed Ali Mosaddad","doi":"10.1016/j.identj.2025.100857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing adoption of digital manufacturing in prosthodontics raises concerns about microbial metabolic activity and adhesion on denture bases fabricated via additive and subtractive methods. This systematic review aimed to compare microbial metabolic activity and microorganism adhesion between 3D-printed and milled complete denture bases. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2024. Studies were screened according to predefined eligibility criteria, and data were independently extracted by two reviewers. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare microbial metabolic activity and cell adhesion outcomes between groups. A random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q, I², and τ² indices. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Egger's test, and the Trim and Fill method. The Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN) was used to assess the risk of bias. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that microbial activity was significantly higher in 3D-printed compared to milled denture bases (SMD = 1.285, 95% CI: 0.810-1.760, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Similarly, the microbial cell count was significantly higher in the 3D-printed group (SMD = 1.050, 95% CI: 0.124-1.976, <em>P =</em> .026). Surface roughness was tested as a covariate in meta-regression and was not a significant predictor of microbial activity. 3D-printed denture bases exhibited higher microbial metabolic activity and adhesion than milled counterparts. However, the heterogeneity of studies and variations in fabrication parameters necessitate further research to optimize material selection and processing protocols.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13785,"journal":{"name":"International dental journal","volume":"75 4","pages":"Article 100857"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653925001467","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing adoption of digital manufacturing in prosthodontics raises concerns about microbial metabolic activity and adhesion on denture bases fabricated via additive and subtractive methods. This systematic review aimed to compare microbial metabolic activity and microorganism adhesion between 3D-printed and milled complete denture bases. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2024. Studies were screened according to predefined eligibility criteria, and data were independently extracted by two reviewers. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare microbial metabolic activity and cell adhesion outcomes between groups. A random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q, I², and τ² indices. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Egger's test, and the Trim and Fill method. The Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN) was used to assess the risk of bias. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that microbial activity was significantly higher in 3D-printed compared to milled denture bases (SMD = 1.285, 95% CI: 0.810-1.760, P < .001). Similarly, the microbial cell count was significantly higher in the 3D-printed group (SMD = 1.050, 95% CI: 0.124-1.976, P = .026). Surface roughness was tested as a covariate in meta-regression and was not a significant predictor of microbial activity. 3D-printed denture bases exhibited higher microbial metabolic activity and adhesion than milled counterparts. However, the heterogeneity of studies and variations in fabrication parameters necessitate further research to optimize material selection and processing protocols.
3d打印和研磨的义齿基托在微生物活性和粘附性方面有区别吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析
数字制造在修复学中的日益普及引起了人们对微生物代谢活动和通过加法和减法制造的义齿基托的粘附性的关注。本系统综述旨在比较3d打印和磨铣全口义齿基托之间的微生物代谢活性和微生物粘附性。系统检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane Library,检索截止到2024年12月。研究根据预先确定的资格标准进行筛选,数据由两名审稿人独立提取。采用标准化平均差(SMD)比较各组间微生物代谢活性和细胞粘附结果。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析,并使用Cochran's Q、I²和τ²指数评估异质性。采用漏斗图、Egger检验和Trim and Fill法评估发表偏倚。采用体外研究质量评估工具(QUIN)评估偏倚风险。12项研究符合纳入标准。荟萃分析显示,3d打印的义齿基托的微生物活性明显高于研磨的义齿基托(SMD = 1.285, 95% CI: 0.810-1.760, P <;措施)。同样,3d打印组的微生物细胞计数显著高于3d打印组(SMD = 1.050, 95% CI: 0.124-1.976, P = 0.026)。表面粗糙度在meta回归中作为协变量进行了测试,并不是微生物活性的显著预测因子。3d打印的义齿基托比研磨的义齿基托具有更高的微生物代谢活性和粘附性。然而,研究的异质性和制造参数的变化需要进一步研究以优化材料选择和加工方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International dental journal
International dental journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
159
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: The International Dental Journal features peer-reviewed, scientific articles relevant to international oral health issues, as well as practical, informative articles aimed at clinicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信