ReviewCureus2026
The Use of 3D-Printed Space Maintainers: Clinical Outcomes and Parental Satisfaction.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Space maintainers (SMs) have traditionally been the treatment of choice for preventing space loss following the premature loss of primary teeth. The advent of digital dentistry has revolutionized dental care with the introduction of 3D-printed space maintainers. A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize the existing evidence on the use of 3D-printed SMs, their clinical outcomes, and parental satisfaction. The literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A predefined search strategy led to the selection of 12 studies published between 2019 and 2025. The data were analyzed narratively. An enhanced patient experience during impression-taking through a digital workflow was a significant factor contributing to patient satisfaction. The survival and failure rates of 3D-printed SMs were dependent on the material properties used in the intervention. Resin-based SMs were more prone to failure due to decementation, whereas metal-based SMs were more mechanically durable. Regarding clinical outcomes, gingival health consistently improved; however, this improvement did not persist beyond six months. No other clinical outcomes, such as Plaque Index (PI), dimensional stability, or soft tissue trauma, were reported. Evidence regarding parental satisfaction was scarce, although overall satisfaction was enhanced, mainly due to the digital impression workflow. This research gap may be attributed to the nascent stage of these interventions; however, long-term validation and efficacy studies are warranted to fully realize the potential of these technologies.
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.