Clear guidance to select the most accurate technologies for 3D printing dental models - A network meta-analysis✰.

OBJECTIVES: Thus far, the findings of numerous studies conducted on the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed dental models are conflicting. Therefore, the aim of the network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the accuracy of 3D printed dental models compared with digital reference models. DATA: Studies comparing the accuracy of 3D printed full-arch dental models manufactured using different printing techniques to initial STL files were included. SOURCES: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285863). An electronic search was performed across four databases in November 2021, and search was restricted to the English language. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic search was conducted based on a prespecified search query. 16,303 articles were pooled after the removal of the duplicates. Following study selection and data extraction, 11 eligible studies were included in the NMA in 6 subgroups. The outcomes were specified as trueness and precision and expressed as root mean square (RMS) and absolute mean deviation values. Seven printing technologies were analyzed: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling/fused filament fabrication (FDM/FFF), MultiJet, PolyJet, continuous liquid interface production (CLIP), and LCD technology. The QUADAS-2 and GRADE were used to evaluate the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technologies were the most accurate in producing full-arch dental models. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of the NMA suggest that SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technologies are sufficiently accurate for full-arch dental model production for prosthodontic purposes. In contrast, FDM/FFF, CLIP, and LCD technologies are less suitable for manufacturing dental models.

The use of autogenous tooth bone graft is an efficient method of alveolar ridge preservation - meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ridge resorption following tooth extraction may be reduced by alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). Previous randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews have suggested that autogenous tooth bone graft (ATB) can be an effective alternative material for ARP. However, the results are heterogeneous. Therefore, our research aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ATB in ARP. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus for studies published from inception to 31 November 2021. We searched searched for randomized, non-randomized controlled trials and case series reporting on ATB use for ARP. The primary outcome was the ridge width difference pre- and post-surgery, measured in millimetres (mm) measured on CBCT (cone beam computed tomography). The secondary outcomes were the histological results. We followed the PRISMA2020 recommendations for reporting our systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included eight studies for the primary and six for the secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis revealed a positive ridge preservation effect with a pooled mean difference ridge width change of -0.72 mm. The pooled mean residual graft proportion was 11.61%, and the newly formed bone proportion was 40.23%. The pooled mean of newly formed bone proportion was higher in the group where ATB originated from both the root and crown of the tooth. CONCLUSIONS: ATB is an effective particulate graft material in ARP. Complete demineralization of the ATB tends to decrease the proportion of newly formed bone. ATB can be an attractive option for ARP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021287890).

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have a higher chance of developing periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and objective: Periodontitis affects up to one billion people worldwide, and has been proven to be associated with several systemic inflammatory conditions. This study investigates the specific relationship between two multifactorial diseases: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and periodontitis. To thoroughly explore this issue, we investigated separately whether IBD patients have a higher chance of developing periodontitis, and equally, whether patients with periodontitis have a higher chance of developing IBD. Methods: The systematic search was performed in three databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Trials, and Embase, up to 26 October 2021. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. All eligible studies investigating the association between IBD and periodontitis from either direction were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. As a primary outcome, we investigated the prevalence of IBD and periodontitis, and calculated the odds ratio (OR). Our secondary outcomes involved comparing the clinical periodontal outcomes of IBD patients to those of IBD-free patients. Results: The systematic search resulted in 1,715 records, 14 of which were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 8 for quantitative synthesis. On the basis of the results of the primary outcome, IBD diagnosis was associated with significantly higher odds of periodontitis: OR = 2.65 (CI: 2.09-3.36, I 2 = 0 (CI: 0-0.75)). For subgroup analysis, we investigated separately the odds in Crohn's disease (CD) patients: OR = 2.22 (CI: 1.49-3.31, I 2 = 0.05 (CI: 0-0.76)) and in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients: OR = 3.52 (CI: 2.56 to 4.83, I 2 = 0 (CI: 0-0.75)); the odds were significantly higher in all cases. Two studies investigated whether patients with periodontitis were more susceptible to IBD, and both found that periodontitis was significantly associated with the risk of subsequent UC, but not with subsequent CD. However, more studies are needed to prove an association. Conclusion: Our analysis confirmed that IBD patients have a higher chance of developing periodontitis, and are a higher risk population in dentistry. Both dentists and gastroenterologists should be aware of this relationship and should emphasize the importance of prevention even more than in the healthy population. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021286161].