Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials
Table 1
Features of the CTs evaluated.
Authors Publication date
Participants
Mean Age
Female Male
Intervention control
Main outcomes
Treatment time
Shim et al. 2022
46
16 years
28/18
CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus lab group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus a group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional group)
The CAD/CAM group experienced a less intercanine width decrease (). The CAD/CAM group experienced a less increase in Little’s irregularity index (). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%)
6 months of bonding fixed retainers
Adanur-Atmaca et al. 2021
132
16 years
92/40
Lingual retainers with 0.016 3 0.022 in dead soft wire versus Lingual retainers with 0.0215 in 5 strand stainless steel wire versus lingual retainers with 0.014 3 0.014-in CAD/CAM nitinol versus lingual retainers with connected bonding pads
Gingival inflammation and calculus accumulation were the lowest in CAD/CAM group (). The Little’s irregularity for CAD/CAM group and stainless steel retainers was less than that of the other groups. No clinically significant worsening of periodontal health or relapse was seen in any groups after 1 year
12 months
Hegele et al. 2021
38
14 years
23/15
Indirect bonded customized CAD/CAM brackets versus direct bonded self-ligating brackets
No differences between both treatment groups were found concerning overall treatment time, the number of appointments, and the number of archwire bends. Bonding failures occurred more often using the CAD/CAM system. Indirectly bonded brackets did not have to be repositioned as often as directly bonded brackets. Treatment results with both systems were similar concerning their effects on the reduction of ABO score. The number of the used archwires was higher in the CAD/CAM group
16.7 months
Jackers et al. 2021
24
23 years
17/7
CAD/CAM custom indirect bonding self-ligating system versus indirect bonding self-ligating standard system
The indirect bonding self-ligating standard system had a 26% longer overall orthodontic treatment time compared with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system (). The indirect bonding self-ligating bracket system demonstrated the same quality of treatment. Patients showed a high level of acceptance and satisfaction with both techniques
393 days in the CAD/CAM group 497 days in the standard system
Alrawas et al. 2021
60
20 years
43/17
CAD/CAM NiTi retainer, multistranded stainless steel versus single-stranded nickel-free titanium retainer versus vacuum-formed removable group
All groups showed some relapse in the lower anterior teeth. No statistical significance was found intergroup in terms of all measured values. Less plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation were observed in the CAD/CAM NiTi retainer group but without statistical significance
6 months of follow-up
Czolgosz et al. 2020
27
17 years
15/12
Computer-aided indirect bonding method versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets
Clinical chair time for bonding half a mouth was significantly shorter for computer-aided indirect bonding (). There was no single immediate debonding with the direct bonding method, while 14 brackets were lost with the indirect bonding method (). Cost-minimization analysis showed that computer-aided indirect bonding was more expensive than direct bonding
Not reported
Gelin et al. 2020
41
17 years
43/18
To compare CAD/CAM customized nitinol retainers with standard stainless-steel fixed retainers
No significant difference between customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainers and standard stainless-steel lingual retainers in terms of dental anterior stability and retainer survival were observed. Both retainers eventually appeared to be equally effective in maintaining periodontal health
12 months
Penning et al. 2017
174
14 years
103/71
Customized orthodontic system versus non-customized orthodontic system
The customized group had more loose brackets, a longer planning time, and more complaints (). The customized orthodontic system was not associated with significantly reduced treatment duration, and treatment quality was comparable between the 2 systems
1.29 years in the customized system 1.24 years in the non-customized system
