Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39558703›Full record

ReviewJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025

Advances in Dental Restorations: A Comprehensive Review of Machinable and 3D-Printed Ceramic-Reinforced Composites.

Sillas Duarte, Jin-Ho Phark

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07429747 (Performance of Reinforced 3D-Printed Versus Direct Bulk-Filled Resin Composites for Restoring Extensive Class II Cavities in Vital Molars), which is 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
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. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A Review of Current Systems, Materials, and Protocols for 3D-Printed Splints, Crowns, and Dentures.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors.

Sillas DuarteAdvanced Operative and Adhesive Dentistry, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3314-8860
Jin-Ho PharkAdvanced Operative and Adhesive Dentistry, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3330-7511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis review aims to evaluate the current understanding and clinical applications of machinable ceramic-reinforced composites (CRCs) and the emerging first generation of 3D-printed CRCs in dental restorations. OVERVIEW: Machinable CRCs, introduced over a decade ago, have shown moderate success in short- to medium-term clinical applications, particularly in low-stress areas. However, their long-term durability limitations, such as increased wear and marginal deterioration, restrict their use in high-stress situations and full crowns. The first generation of 3D-printed CRCs offers customization advantages but is still in early development and exhibits lower mechanical strength and higher wear rates than CAD-CAM CRCs and traditional ceramics. Additionally, the classification and definitions surrounding CRCs remain ambiguous, as ADA categorizations do not clearly differentiate CRCs from ceramics, complicating clinical indication, usage, and billing practices.

conclusionMachinable CAD-CAM CRCs are moderately successful in low-stress applications, while 3D-printed CRCs show limitations in wear resistance and durability, raising concerns for their use in definitive restorations. Both require further research and clinical validation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Machinable CAD-CAM CRCs are best suited for low-stress applications, while 3D-printed CRCs may be more appropriate for provisional use. Until long-term clinical data are available, ceramics should be preferred for high-stress or full-coverage restorations. Clearer definitions for porcelain/ceramic and comprehensive application guidelines are urgently needed to support clinician decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

CeramicsComposite ResinsDental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentPrinting, Three-DimensionalComputer-Aided DesignDental Prosthesis DesignHumansComposite ResinsDental Materials3D‐printedadditive manufacturingCAD‐CAMceramic‐reinforced compositesdental ceramicshybrid ceramicsmachinablereviewsubtractive manufacturing

Identifiers

PMID39558703
PMCPMC11913211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.