SynthesisEuropean oral research2026
The effect of manufacturing technique on marginal gap in inlay, onlay, veneer, and endocrown restorations: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
Synthesis in European oral research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the marginal fit of indirect partial restorations, such as inlays, onlays, and endocrowns, fabricated using milling (subtractive manufacturing) and 3D printing (additive manufacturing) techniques. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and utilized the PICO framework to define the research question. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published in English between January 1, 2015, and April 1, 2025. The search targeted studies that directly compared milled and 3D-printed indirect partial restorations and reported marginal gap values in a numerical format. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and outcomes were synthesized using the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Results: A total of 16 studies, comprising 257 milled samples and 287 3D-printed samples, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled analysis found no statistically significant difference in marginal gap values between milled and 3D-printed partial restorations (p = 0.62). However, subgroup analyses revealed varying trends. For occlusal veneers, milled restorations showed a smaller marginal gap than 3D-printed restorations; however, this difference was not statistically significant (SMD = -1.86, 95% CI: -18.24 to -14.53, p = 0.39). Conversely, inlays and onlays showed a non-significant trend favoring 3D printing (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI: -0.26 to 2.00, p = 0.11). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis conclude that there is no overall statistically significant difference in marginal fit between milled and 3D-printed indirect partial 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.