ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
The Influence of Printing Orientation on the Properties of 3D-Printed Polymeric Provisional Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of build orientation on the marginal and internal fit of 3-D printed provisional fixed dental prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Fracture resistance and survival rates of chairside, milled, and 3D-printed provisional three-unit FDPs with two cements before and after masticatory simulation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printable Aligner Resins: An In Vitro Study with FTIR Chemical Characterization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of build orientation on fracture load and surface roughness of three-unit provisional fixed partial dentures fabricated by digital light processing.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Do the Pre-Existing Class III and Class V Composite Restorations Affect the Sealing Ability and Integrity of 3D-Printed Laminate Veneer Margins? An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparison of tensile bond strengths of different impression materials used with custom trays fabricated by 3D printing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Hydrolytic stability and surface roughness of additively and subtractively manufactured CAD/CAM and indirect restorative resin materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Additive manufacturing for Dentistry: A comprehensive review of techniques and applications.Progress in materials science · 2026Article
- Article
- The Influence of Thermal and Mechanical Aging on the Flexural Properties of Conventional and 3D-Printed Materials Used in Occlusal Splints Manufacturing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional printing is commonly used to fabricate provisional dental restorations. Studies have reported that changes in printing orientation affect the physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymeric provisional restorations; however the findings have been inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze the articles evaluating the influence of printing orientation on the physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymeric provisional dental restorations. Recommendations provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to structure and compose the review. The PICO (Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) question ordered was: 'Do 3D-printed provisional dental restorations (P) printed at various orientations (except 0°) (I) exhibit similar physical and mechanical properties (O) when compared to those printed at a 0° orientation (C)?'. An electronic search was conducted on 28 and 29 April 2025, by two independent researchers across four databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to systematically collect relevant articles published up to March 2025. After removing duplicate articles and applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, twenty-one articles were incorporated into this review. Self-designed Performa's were used to tabulate all relevant information. For the quality analysis, the modified CONSORT scale was utilized. The quantitative analysis was performed on only fifteen out of twenty-one articles. It can be concluded that the printing orientation affects some of the tested properties, which include fracture strength (significantly higher for specimens printed at 0° when compared to 90°), wear resistance (significantly higher for specimens printed at 90° when compared to 0°), microhardness (significantly higher for specimens printed at 90°and 45° when compared to 0°), color stability (high at 0°), and surface roughness (significantly higher for specimens printed at 45° and 90° when compared to 0°). There were varied outcomes in terms of flexural strength and elastic modulus.
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.