Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38318586›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed Dental Resins: A Systematic Review.

Jayant Prakash, Mahesh Shenoy, Abdulmajeed Alhasmi, Azzam A Al Saleh, Shivakumar G C, Sahana Shivakumar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ZnO/SiOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jayant PrakashDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Mahesh ShenoyDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Medicine and Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Abdulmajeed AlhasmiDepartment of Periodontics, King Salman Hospital, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, SAU.
Azzam A Al SalehDepartment of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, SAU.
Shivakumar G CDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, People's College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, IND.
Sahana ShivakumarDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, People's College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe biocompatibility of 3D-printed dental resins has become a critical concern in modern dentistry due to the increasing utilization of additive manufacturing (AM) techniques in dental applications. These resins serve as essential materials for fabricating dental prostheses, orthodontic devices, and various dental components. As the clinical adoption of 3D printing in dentistry grows, it is imperative to comprehensively assess the biocompatibility of these materials to ensure patient safety and dental treatment efficacy. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing body of literature on the biocompatibility of 3D-printed dental resins, thereby providing valuable insights into the potential biological risks associated with their use.

methodsThe search strategy to identify relevant papers was implemented across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Study selection was not limited to any particular timeframe of publishing. The revised CONSORT criteria were used to ascertain the authenticity and dependability of the review's outcomes. Comprehensive screening and eligibility assessment processes were conducted to select studies meeting predefined criteria. Biocompatibility-related parameters, including toxicity, mechanical properties, cell viability, and other relevant outcomes, were analyzed across selected studies using a standardized variable extraction protocol.

resultsA total of 9 studies were included in the systematic review. The findings encompassed various aspects of biocompatibility assessment, including material composition, mechanical properties, cell viability, and cytotoxicity. Some studies revealed significant improvements in flexural strength and cell viability with specific resin formulations, demonstrating their potential for enhanced clinical utility. Conversely, certain resins exhibited cytotoxicity, while others displayed promising biocompatibility profiles.

conclusionAs per the assessed findings, material composition, post-processing techniques, and manufacturing methods emerged as critical factors influencing biocompatibility outcomes. While some resins exhibited favorable biocompatibility profiles, others raised concerns due to cytotoxicity. These findings emphasize the need for careful consideration when selecting and implementing 3D-printed dental resins, with a focus on materials engineering and comprehensive biocompatibility testing. Further research is warranted to elucidate the long-term biocompatibility and clinical implications of these materials.

Indexed as

3d printingadditive manufacturingbiocompatibilitycell viabilitycytotoxicitydental resinsmechanical propertiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38318586
PMCPMC10839546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.