Engineering

Dental Abutments

Surgery

Civil engineering

Computer science

Visual arts

Dentistry

Subtractive color

Implant

Abutment

Crown (dentistry)

Medicine

Engineering drawing

Computer-aided manufacturing

Clinical Oral Implants Research

To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses.A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer-aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD-CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included.Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s-CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a-CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s-CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a-CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9-11.8 min), abutments (range 19.7-32.7 min) and crowns (range 11.1-37.6 min). The time for s-CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25 min. Post-processing (e.g. sintering) was a time-consuming process (up to 530 min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD-CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%).No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.

Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review