ReviewJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
A Review of Current Systems, Materials, and Protocols for 3D-Printed Splints, Crowns, and Dentures.
Review in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Polishing, Resin Coating, and Glaze Coating on the Surface Properties of a 3D-Printed Splint Resin.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of Printing Orientation and Printer Type on the Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Splints.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Toothbrush Resistance of Resin-Based Stain and Glaze Materials Applied to 3D-Printed Denture Resins.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize and synthesize evidence-based conclusions on optimal three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, materials, and clinical protocols for splints, crowns, and dentures. OVERVIEW: In resin vat printing, stereolithography (SLA) offers superior surface finish, while liquid crystal display (LCD) and digital light processing (DLP) excel in speed for larger prints, with LCD providing a cost advantage. Ceramic vat printing yields clinically acceptable strength but is equipment- and time-intensive. Optimal angulation varies by application: splints (0°), crowns (150°-210°), dentures (45°-90°). A 50 μm layer height is preferred for most restorations, with dentures tolerating 100 μm. Commonly used resins employ low-viscosity monomers (e.g., ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate [Bis-EMA]) that limit stiffness and fast photoinitiators (e.g., ethyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenylphosphinate [TPO]), requiring 385-405 nm curing.
conclusionsFlexible splints excel in fracture toughness and impact strength; firm splints match milled wear performance. Printed crowns, while weaker than milled options, offer toughness; wear rates remain a concern. Printed denture bases vary in strength but can match or exceed conventional options; printed teeth show favorable wear resistance. Postprocessing, polishing, and bonding protocols critically influence outcomes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Employing validated printing parameters, selecting the appropriate resin, and following evidence-based protocols allows clinicians to maximize restoration accuracy and mechanical performance while leveraging 3D printing's efficiency and cost benefits.
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.