SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Effect of different 3D-printing systems on the flexural strength of provisional fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of in vitro studies.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical and surface properties of resin-based materials for permanent use fabricated by subtractive, additive, and hybrid manufacturing techniques.Odontology · 2026Article
- Mechanical Performance of CAD/CAM-Milled Versus 3D-Printed Resins for Prosthetic Applications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Polymers · 2026Review
- Surface roughness and microhardness of 3D printed denture base resins when printed with different printers.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Influence of Digital Manufacturing and Abutment Design on Full-Arch Implant Prostheses-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effects of post-curing conditions on degree of conversion, microhardness, and stainability of 3D printed permanent resins.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the flexural strength of provisional fixed dental prostheses (PFDPs) fabricated using different 3D printing technologies, including digital light processing (DLP), stereolithography (SLA), liquid crystal display (LCD), selective laser sintering (SLS), Digital Light Synthesis (DLS), and fused deposition modeling (FDM). MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Open Grey up to September 2024. Studies evaluating the flexural strength of PFDPs fabricated by 3D printing systems were included. A network meta-analysis was performed, using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of each system on flexural strength.
resultsA total of 11 in vitro studies were included, with 9 studies contributing to the network meta-analysis. SLS (77.70%) and SLA (63.82%) systems ranked the highest in terms of flexural strength, while DLP ranked the lowest (23.40%). Significant differences were observed between SLS and multiple other systems, including DLP (-14.58, CI: -22.67 to -6.48), LCD (-14.65, CI: -25.54 to -3.59), FDM (-12.87, CI: -23.30 to -2.52), SLA (-11.41, CI: -18.74 to -4.01), and DLS (-10.89, CI: -21.23 to -0.67). Direct comparisons were limited, with DLP vs. SLA having the most data. Other comparisons were predominantly indirect.
conclusionsSLS and SLA systems exhibited superior flexural strength compared to other systems. However, the limited number of direct comparisons and reliance on indirect evidence suggest that further research is necessary to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.