How Does the Bonding Strength of Reline Materials and Denture Teeth Vary Between 3D-Printed and Milled Complete Denture Bases? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.2 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1002/cre2.70234

Sarah Arzani, Erfan Khorasani, Aida Mokhlesi, Shima Azadian, Safoura Ghodsi, Seyed Ali Mosaddad

{"title":"How Does the Bonding Strength of Reline Materials and Denture Teeth Vary Between 3D-Printed and Milled Complete Denture Bases? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Sarah Arzani, Erfan Khorasani, Aida Mokhlesi, Shima Azadian, Safoura Ghodsi, Seyed Ali Mosaddad","doi":"10.1002/cre2.70234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To systematically compare the bond strength of denture teeth and reline materials to additively manufactured (AM) versus subtractively milled (SM) denture base resins and to identify the material- and process-related factors influencing bonding performance.Materials and methods: A systematic electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted up to December 10, 2024. Eligible in vitro studies comparing bond strength at either the tooth-base or reline-base interface using AM and SM denture bases were included. Studies that lacked direct comparison, involved conventional heat-polymerized bases, or did not report quantitative bond strength data were excluded. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, calculating mean differences (MD) for tooth bonding and standardized mean differences (SMD) for reline bonding. Subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses (Egger's regression and Begg's rank tests) were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUIN tools.Results: Out of 2985 screened records, 20 studies comprising 156 independent comparisons were included; 41 for tooth bonding and 115 for reline bonding. Initial tooth-bonding meta-analysis revealed no significant difference; however, after exclusion of two outlier comparisons identified through sensitivity analysis (n = 39), milled bases demonstrated significantly higher bond strength (MD = -2.43 MPa, 95% CI-3.90 to -0.96; p = 0.001). For reline bonding, AM bases consistently underperformed across all studies, with the pooled estimate favoring milled bases (SMD = -2.62, 95% CI-3.22 to -2.03; p = 0.001).Conclusion: Within the limitations of this review, milled denture bases demonstrate consistently stronger and more reliable bonding to both teeth and reline materials than current printable photopolymer bases.","PeriodicalId":10203,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","volume":"11 5","pages":"e70234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12502631/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To systematically compare the bond strength of denture teeth and reline materials to additively manufactured (AM) versus subtractively milled (SM) denture base resins and to identify the material- and process-related factors influencing bonding performance.

Materials and methods: A systematic electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted up to December 10, 2024. Eligible in vitro studies comparing bond strength at either the tooth-base or reline-base interface using AM and SM denture bases were included. Studies that lacked direct comparison, involved conventional heat-polymerized bases, or did not report quantitative bond strength data were excluded. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, calculating mean differences (MD) for tooth bonding and standardized mean differences (SMD) for reline bonding. Subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses (Egger's regression and Begg's rank tests) were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUIN tools.

Results: Out of 2985 screened records, 20 studies comprising 156 independent comparisons were included; 41 for tooth bonding and 115 for reline bonding. Initial tooth-bonding meta-analysis revealed no significant difference; however, after exclusion of two outlier comparisons identified through sensitivity analysis (n = 39), milled bases demonstrated significantly higher bond strength (MD = -2.43 MPa, 95% CI-3.90 to -0.96; p = 0.001). For reline bonding, AM bases consistently underperformed across all studies, with the pooled estimate favoring milled bases (SMD = -2.62, 95% CI-3.22 to -2.03; p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this review, milled denture bases demonstrate consistently stronger and more reliable bonding to both teeth and reline materials than current printable photopolymer bases.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在3d打印和磨铣的全口义齿基托之间，线状材料和义齿的结合强度如何变化？系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的：系统比较增材制造（AM）和减法研磨（SM）义齿基托树脂对义齿和衬线材料的粘接强度，并确定影响粘接性能的材料和工艺相关因素。材料与方法：截止到2024年12月10日，对PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和谷歌Scholar进行了系统的电子检索。纳入了使用AM和SM义齿基托比较牙基或线基界面结合强度的合格体外研究。缺乏直接比较、涉及传统热聚合碱或未报告定量键合强度数据的研究被排除。使用随机效应模型进行meta分析，计算牙齿粘合的平均差异（MD）和线粘合的标准化平均差异（SMD）。纳入亚组、敏感性和发表偏倚分析（Egger's回归和Begg's秩检验）。使用QUIN工具评估偏倚风险。结果：在2985份筛选记录中，纳入了20项研究，包括156项独立比较；41用于齿连接，115用于线连接。初始牙结合meta分析显示差异无统计学意义；然而，在通过敏感性分析（n = 39）排除两个异常值比较后，磨铣碱基显示出明显更高的结合强度（MD = -2.43 MPa, 95% CI-3.90至-0.96,p = 0.001）。在所有的研究中，AM碱基的粘接性能一直不佳，综合估计更倾向于研磨碱基（SMD = -2.62, 95% ci为-3.22至-2.03;p = 0.001）。结论：在本综述的局限性内，与目前可打印的光聚合物基托相比，磨牙基托与牙齿和牙线材料的结合始终更强、更可靠。

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

Clinical and Experimental Dental Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

165

审稿时长

26 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical and Experimental Dental Research aims to provide open access peer-reviewed publications of high scientific quality representing original clinical, diagnostic or experimental work within all disciplines and fields of oral medicine and dentistry. The scope of Clinical and Experimental Dental Research comprises original research material on the anatomy, physiology and pathology of oro-facial, oro-pharyngeal and maxillofacial tissues, and functions and dysfunctions within the stomatognathic system, and the epidemiology, aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of diseases and conditions that have an effect on the homeostasis of the mouth, jaws, and closely associated structures, as well as the healing and regeneration and the clinical aspects of replacement of hard and soft tissues with biomaterials, and the rehabilitation of stomatognathic functions. Studies that bring new knowledge on how to advance health on the individual or public health levels, including interactions between oral and general health and ill-health are welcome.