Murodov Sunnatilloxon Kuvondik ugli (1), Akhmedov Alisher Astanovich (2)
Full-arch rehabilitation presents complex challenges in prosthodontics, requiring accurate fit, optimal occlusion, and long-term stability. CAD/CAM technology has revolutionized full-arch prosthesis fabrication, enabling precise digital design, standardized milling, and improved material properties. This study evaluates the clinical performance of CAD/CAM-fabricated full-arch prostheses over a five-year period, assessing prosthetic fit, marginal adaptation, occlusal stability, complication rates, patient satisfaction, and peri-implant tissue health. Fifty patients received full-arch implant-supported prostheses fabricated via CAD/CAM techniques, with restorations made from zirconia, titanium frameworks, and hybrid ceramic materials. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. Results demonstrated excellent marginal fit, minimal mechanical complications, high patient satisfaction, and stable peri-implant tissue health. CAD/CAM-fabricated prostheses exhibited lower incidence of framework fractures and screw loosening compared to conventional techniques. These findings suggest that digital workflows significantly enhance prosthesis predictability, longevity, and clinical outcomes in full-arch rehabilitation.
1. Sailer I, et al. “Clinical performance of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia frameworks.” J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98:95–109.
2. Zarone F, et al. “Digital versus conventional full-arch implant prostheses: a systematic review.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:24–39.
3. Babbush CA. “Full-arch implant restorations: screw-retained and cement-retained options.” Dent Clin North Am. 2015;59:231–250.
4. Wittneben JG, et al. “Complications in implant-supported full-arch prostheses.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:522–529.
5. Alikhasi M, et al. “Patient-centered outcomes in full-arch CAD/CAM restorations.” Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:89–98.
6. Mangano FG, et al. “Accuracy of digital impressions for full-arch rehabilitations.” J Dent. 2016;53:62–70.
7. Sailer I, et al. “Five-year clinical outcomes of zirconia-based full-arch prostheses.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:292–301.
8. Goodacre CJ, et al. “CAD/CAM technology in implant prosthodontics.” J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:2–10.
9. Pjetursson BE, et al. “Survival and complications of full-arch prostheses: a systematic review.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:59–66.
10. Naert I, et al. “Long-term evaluation of implant-supported full-arch prostheses.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:158–166.
11. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S. “Digital vs conventional workflow: full-arch prostheses clinical evaluation.” Int J Prosthodont. 2012;25:439–447.
12. Tattan M, et al. “Material selection for CAD/CAM full-arch frameworks: biomechanical considerations.” J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:127–136.