ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of additive manufacturing (AM) into digital dentistry has extended 3D printing beyond auxiliary applications toward the fabrication of definitive restorations, yet the evidence remains dispersed across diverse materials and technologies. This scoping review aimed to map the available evidence on 3D-printed resin- and ceramic-based materials for definitive tooth-supported restorations, including crowns, fixed dental prostheses, endocrowns, veneers, overlays, and onlays.
methodsThe review followed the JBI framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to April 2026. Two reviewers screened records independently against predefined eligibility criteria, and data were extracted using a piloted charting form capturing study design, materials, additive manufacturing technology, restoration type, and evaluated outcomes. Given the anticipated heterogeneity, extracted data were synthesised descriptively and mapped narratively rather than pooled statistically; 111 studies met the inclusion criteria.
resultsThe evidence was predominantly in vitro (105 studies), with only six clinical studies, including one randomised controlled trial. Research concentrated on single crowns, zirconia and ceramic-filled/methacrylate-based resins, and vat-photopolymerization technologies. Additively manufactured restorations were frequently reported as comparable to milled controls in dimensional accuracy, marginal and internal fit, and fracture resistance, with values generally falling within the clinically accepted thresholds defined by the primary studies; reported outcomes were most consistent for printed zirconia, whereas printed resins were more often limited by lower strength and colour instability. Outcomes were strongly influenced by processing parameters, underscoring the need for workflow standardisation.
conclusionsThe current evidence supports the technical feasibility of 3D-printed definitive restorations more strongly than their long-term clinical durability, highlighting a need for long-term clinical trials.
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.