# Three-Dimensional Scaffolds Designed and Printed Using CAD/CAM Technology: A Systematic Review
### Results of Individual Studies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Author/Year** & **Material** & **Membrane** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2013 [26] & Coral-derived hydroxyapatite (Biocoral, Leader-Novax, Milan, Italy) & NO \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2014 [27] & Coral-derived hydroxyapatite (Biocoral, Biocoral & NE \\  & Inc, Le Garenne Colombes, France) & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2016 [24] & Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) (70\% & \\  & beta-tricalcium phosphate and 30\% & YES \\  & hydroxyapatite) (BTK, Dueville, Vicenza, Italy). & YES \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2022 [22] & Beta-tricalcium phosphate (Plenum® Oss 3D\(\beta\) fit, Plenum Bioengenharia, Jundiai, Brazil) & YES \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2022 [23] & Polycaprolactone (Evonik Industries, Essen, Germany) and \(\beta\)-TCP tricalcium phosphate (Foster corporation, Putnam, CT, USA) & NE \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2022 [25] & Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) (70\% & \\  & beta-tricalcium phosphate and 30\% & \\  & hydroxyapatite) (RIGENERA 3D, Biotec-BTK, & \\  & Dueville, Vicenza, Italy). & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Materials used. combined with \(\beta\)-TCP powder for 10 min. This mixture was then manufactured on a 3D printer with CAM software. The 3D printing program (3-Matic Research 9.0, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) calculated a porosity of 50% by 500 microns. The scaffolds were dried at \(-85\)\({}^{\circ}\)C for 24 h before sterilization with a 450 W UV lamp for 4 h.  
Table 3 shows the complications presented by the patients in each of the studies. In the 2013 study by [PERSON] et al. [26], There were no surgical problems, no clinical evidence of sinus disease, and no patients demonstrated symptoms of maxillary sinusitis. A total of 19 implants were inserted. At the end of the research, following two years of functional loading, all implants were operational, with no clinical or prosthetic problems. Radiographic examination demonstrated a low tendency for marginal bone resorption and high stability of peri-implant bone tissue. In the 2014 publication of [PERSON] et al. [27], the scaffolds fractured in two patients when attempting to fix them with mini-screws; nevertheless, they were repositioned and the screws were fastened in another area. No further issues or failures of the augmentation surgery were reported in these patients. One patient developed a dehiscence two months following surgery. The implants that were implanted had a 100% survival rate. None of the implants had discomfort, suppuration, mobility, radiolucency or prosthetic problems. In the study of [PERSON] et al. [24], three incidents of scaffold exposure occurred one, three and five months following surgery. In these situations, a new flap was used to remove a portion of the scaffold using a piezoelectric device, resulting in two exposures being resolved with complete re-epithelialization of the regions and soft tissue closure in 2-3 weeks. The third case involved an infection and complete graft failure. One example of wound dehiscence was caused by partial flap necrosis, necessitating the adoption of a local flap for coverage. This latter issue was also reported in a patient by [PERSON] et al. [23]. In the instance of [PERSON] et al. in 2022 [25], three cases of dehiscence and graft exposure were successfully treated by opening a new full-thickness flap and removing the most coronal component of the scaffold using a piezoelectric device. Treatment with chlorhexidine gel and a rinse was recommended. An exposure resulted in infection, graft extraction, and surgery failure. A significant rate of postoperative complications, including graft exposure, was documented (11.5%). There was one incidence of peri-implant mucositis and another of abutment fracture.