Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38541534›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024

3D Printed Materials for Permanent Restorations in Indirect Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Dario Balestra, Morgan Lowther, Cecilia Goracci, Mauro Mandurino, Silvia Cortili, Gaetano Paolone, Chris Louca, Alessandro Vichi

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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.

NCT07429747 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Performance of Reinforced 3D-Printed Versus Direct Bulk-Filled Resin Composites for Restoring Extensive Class II Cavities in Vital Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAhmed Reda Abd EL RahmanRan2026 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsClass II Lesions, 3D Printing, Bulk Fill, Proximal Cavities of Posterior TeethArms3D-printed Ceramic reinforced resin restoration, bulk fill composite
NCT07691658 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Evaluation of Prefabricated Versus 3D-Printed Composite Resin Veneers: in Vivo Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorTanta UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsVeneer, Composite Restorations, Teeth Color, Teeth StainingArmsPrefabricated Composite Resin Veneers, 3D-Printed Composite Resin Veneers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Dario BalestraDental Academy, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2QG, UK.
Morgan LowtherSchool of Mechanical and Design Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3DJ, UK.
Cecilia GoracciDepartment of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.
Mauro MandurinoDental School, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3441-9024
Silvia CortiliDental School, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Gaetano PaoloneDental School, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8967-6132
Chris LoucaDental Academy, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2QG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7925-8068
Alessandro VichiDental Academy, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2QG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1158-5388

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to review the scientific evidence currently available on 3D printable materials and 3D printing technologies used for the fabrication of permanent restorations, focusing on material properties that are clinically relevant. A literature search was performed on four databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for articles published from January 2013 until November 2023, using a combination of free words: (restorative dentistry OR prosthetic dentistry) AND (3D printing OR additive manufacturing OR rapid prototyping) AND materials. Two reviewers screened titles and/or abstracts of 2.468 unique studies. In total, 83 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which 36 were included in the review. The assessed variables were mechanical properties, reporting in most of the cases positive results, dimensional accuracy and fit, reporting conflicting results with a predominance of positive, aesthetic properties, with positive reports but scarcely addressed, and biological properties, almost unexplored in independent studies. Despite numerous studies with positive results in favor, papers with negative outcomes were also retrieved. Aesthetic and biological properties are conversely still mostly unexplored. There remains a lack of conclusive evidence for viable 3D printable restorative and prosthodontic materials for permanent restorations. Research should be strengthened by defining international standards for laboratory testing and, where pre-clinical data are promising, conducting clinical trials.

Indexed as

3D printingadditive manufacturingprosthodonticsrapid prototyping

Identifiers

PMID38541534
PMCPMC10971886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.