ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Clinical application of additive manufacturing in maxillofacial prosthetics: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDigital workflows provide significant advances in prosthodontics, especially in terms of accuracy, reduced treatment duration, and quality of life. Moreover, additive manufacturing (AM) is particularly adapted for the fabrication of personalized complex prototypes required for the prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillofacial defects. However, the integration of AM in maxillofacial prosthetics (MP) protocols is challenging. The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate the clinical contribution of AM to the management of patients requiring MP.
methodsThis scoping review followed the PRISMA recommendations. Searches were conducted until December 2024 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Selection was performed by reviewing titles and abstracts, followed by full-text evaluation according to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. In vitro studies and case reports were excluded.
resultsOf the 1526 retrieved articles, 16 were included. These clinical studies were 14 case series and 2 cohort studies, with a sample size averaging ∼8 participants per study. The applications were 3D-printed prostheses, prosthetic prototypes, master casts or molds, and implant guides. These articles demonstrated that AM enhanced clinical management of MP in terms of cost, production time, aesthetics, retention, accuracy, quality of life, and comfort. The replication of skin texture remained the only criterion requiring improvement.
conclusionsWorkflows integrating computer-aided design and AM offer alternatives to conventional procedures for the management of MP. However, the organization of digital workflows suggests an initial investment related to installation costs and the recruitment of trained technicians. Larger-scale studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to establish whether a digital workflow incorporating AM represents a standard treatment approach.
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.