ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Flexural Strength, Fatigue Behavior, and Microhardness of Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Resin Material for Indirect Restorations: A Systematic Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the marginal and internal fit of endocrown restorations fabricated by the CAD/CAM system using additive manufacturing technique.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Article
- Mechanical Properties of Novel 3D-Printed Restorative Materials for Definitive Dental Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate three mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins for indirect restorations according to published scientific evidence. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting elements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses). The search was performed by two investigators, (DD) and (VB), and a third (AC) resolved disagreements. Articles were searched in four digital databases: PubMed, EBSCO, Lilacs, and Science Direct, starting on 18 February 2024. As 3D-printing technology has shown significant advances in the last 5 years, the review was conducted with a publication year range between 2019 and 2024, in English language and included in vitro articles on the mechanical properties of flexural strength, fatigue behavior, and microhardness of 3D-printed materials for temporary or definitive restorations. MeSH terms and free terms were used for the titles and abstracts of each article. Finally, the QUIN tool was used to assess the risk of bias. In the main search, 227 articles were found, of which 20 duplicates were excluded, leaving 207 articles; of these, titles and abstracts were read, and 181 that did not meet the eligibility criteria were eliminated; of the remaining 26 articles, 1 article was eliminated for not presenting quantitative results. Regarding publication bias, 6 of the 25 articles had a low risk of bias, 18 had a medium risk of bias, and 1 had a high risk of bias. It may be concluded that 3D-printed resins have lower flexural strength, fatigue behavior, and microhardness than other resin types used for the fabrication of temporary and permanent restorations. The type of 3D printer and polymerization time could be factors that significantly affect the flexural strength, fatigue behavior and microhardness of 3D-printed resins. Based on existing evidence, it should be considered that additive technology has promising future prospects for temporary and permanent dental restorations.
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.