Mechanical properties of polymethyl methacrylate as a denture base: Conventional versus CAD-CAM resin – A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies
The development of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) resin blocks with reported improved mechanical properties has simplified complete denture production. However, whether the objective of improved mechanical properties has been achieved...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2022-12, Vol.128 (6), p.1221-1229 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The development of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) resin blocks with reported improved mechanical properties has simplified complete denture production. However, whether the objective of improved mechanical properties has been achieved compared with conventional heat-polymerized PMMA is not yet clear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the mechanical properties of denture base resins manufactured by conventional heat-polymerization and by CAD-CAM in terms of flexural strength, flexural modulus, and surface roughness.
Electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) were independently searched by 2 researchers for relevant studies published up to November 2020. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question was, “Does the conventionally manufactured, heat-polymerized PMMA resin, as a denture base, demonstrate the same mechanical properties as the CAD-CAM resin block?” In addition, a meta-analysis was based on the inverse variance method. Flexural strength, flexural modulus, and surface roughness were analyzed through the continuous outcome evaluated by mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals. To evaluated heterogeneity, the I2 value (≤25%=low, ≥50%=moderate and ≥75%=high) and the P value were considered. P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-3913 1097-6841 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.018 |