This review compared Computer-aided designand Computer-aided manufactured (CAD-CAM) and conventionally constructed removable complete dentures (CDs). Seventy-three studies reporting on CAD-CAM (milled/3D-printed) CDs were included in this review. The most recent literature search was performed on 15/03/2021. Two investigators searched electronic databases [PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CENTRAL], online search engines (Google) and research portals. Hand searches were performed to identify literature not available online. Studies on CAD-CAM CDs were included if they reported on trueness of fit, biocompatibility, mechanical, surface, chemical, color , microbiological properties, time-cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. Inter-investigator reliability was assessed using kappa scores. Meta-analyses were performed on the extracted data . The kappa score ranged between 0.897-1.000. Meta-analyses revealed that 3D-printed CDs were more true than conventional CDs (p = 0.039). Milled CDs had a higher flexural-strength than conventional and 3D-printed CDs (p < 0.0001). Milled CDs had a higher flexural-modulus than 3D-printed CDs (p < 0.0001). Milled CDs had a higher yield-strength than injection-molded (p = 0.004), and 3D-printed CDs (p = 0.001). Milled CDs had superior toughness (p < 0.0001) and surface roughness characteristics (p < 0.0001) than other CDs . Rapidly-prototyped CDs displayed poor color-stability compared to other CDs (p = 0.029). CAD-CAM CDs d displayed better retention than conventional CDs (p = 0.015). Conventional CDs had a higher strain at yield point than milled CDs (p < 0.0001), and had superior esthetics than 3D-printed (p < 0.0001). Fabrication of CAD-CAM CDs required less chairside time (p = 0.037) and lower overall costs (p < 0.0001) than conventional CDs. This systematic review concludes that CAD-CAM CDs offer a number of improved mechanical/surface properties and are not inferior when compared to conventional CDs. CAD-CAM CDs should be considered for completely edentulous patients whenever possible, since this technique offers numerous advantages including better retention, mechanical and surface properties but most importantly preserves a digital record. This can be a great advantage for older adults with limited access to dental care.

Objectives: his review evaluated implant survival in geriatric patients (≥75 years) and/or the impact of systemic medical conditions. Materials and Methods: Systematic literature searches were performed to identify studies reporting on geriatric subjects with dental implants and on implant patients who had any of the seven most common systematic conditions among geriatric patients. Meta‐analyses were performed on the postloading implant survival rates. The impact of systemic medical conditions and their respective treatment was qualitatively analyzed. Results: A total of 6,893 studies were identified; of those, 60 studies were included. The fixed‐effects model revealed an overall implant survival of 97.3% (95% CI : 94.3, 98.7; studies = 7) and 96.1% (95% CI : 87.3, 98.9; studies = 3), for 1 and 5 years, respectively. In patients with cardiovascular disease, implant survival may be similar or higher compared to healthy patients. High implant survival rates were reported for patients with Parkinson's disease or diabetes mellitus type II . In patients with cancer, implant survival is negatively affected, namely by radiotherapy. Patients with bone metastases receiving high‐dose antiresorptive therapy ( ART ) carry a high risk for complications after implant surgery. Implant survival was reported to be high in patients receiving low‐dose ART for treatment of osteoporosis. No evidence was found on implant survival in patients with dementia, respiratory diseases, liver cirrhosis, or osteoarthritis. Conclusions: Implant prostheses in geriatric subjects are a predictable treatment option with a very high rate of implant survival. The functional and psychosocial benefits of such intervention should outweigh the associated risks to common medical conditions.