Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42198199
Mechanical Performance of CAD/CAM-Milled Versus 3D-Printed Resins for Prosthetic Applications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Carpio-Cevallos Carlos, Chauca-Bajaña Luis, Ordoñez-Balladares Andrea, et al. · Polymers · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/polym18101257
Findings
11 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Xiao 2025 | SMD 2.71 [-0.90, 6.33] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 108 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Flexural strength Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Arora 2023 (Outcome 1) | SMD 1.05 [-0.18, 2.29] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 28 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Flexural strength Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Arora 2023 (Outcome 2) | SMD 1.74 [0.82, 2.65] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 28 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Flexural strength Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Xiao 2025 | SMD 1.10 [-0.12, 2.30] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 24 participants |
| Dental resin specimens in vitro (denture bases and provisional crowns) | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness (Vickers, Shore, Barcol; standardized) Laboratory (in vitro) · Meta-regression on publication year | Meta-regression coefficient (beta) -0.31 GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Dental resin specimens in vitro (denture bases and provisional crowns) | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Flexural strength Laboratory (in vitro) · Meta-regression on publication year | Meta-regression coefficient (beta) 0.32 GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Dental resin specimens in vitro (denture bases and provisional crowns) | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Flexural strength Laboratory (in vitro) | SMD 1.28 [0.42, 2.14] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 40 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Freitas 2022 | SMD 2.27 [-0.86, 5.40] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 104 participants |
| Dental resin specimens in vitro (denture bases and provisional crowns) | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness (Vickers, Shore, Barcol; standardized) Laboratory (in vitro) | SMD 2.92 [0.34, 5.49] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 124 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Marothi 2026 | SMD 2.50 [-0.90, 5.92] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 96 participants |
| In vitro specimens of denture base and provisional crown resins | CAD/CAM-milled resins | 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Hardness Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis omitting Li 2023 | SMD 4.00 [3.15, 4.87] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 64 participants |
Included primary studies 5
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arora 2023 A comparative evaluation of physical properties of CAD/CAM complete denture resins- an in vitro study. PMID:38200506 | 2024 | this review only | Flexural strength | not extracted yet |
| Freitas 2022 Physical, Mechanical, and Anti-Biofilm Formation Properties of CAD-CAM Milled or 3D Printed Denture Base Resins: In Vitro Analysis. PMID:35661475 | 2023 | this review only | Hardness | not extracted yet |
| Li 2023 Effect of adding a hard-reline material on the flexural strength of conventional, 3D-printed, and milled denture base materials. PMID:37121624 | 2023 | this review only | Hardness | not extracted yet |
| Marothi 2026 Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using milling,… PMID:41476356 | 2026 | this review only | Hardness | not extracted yet |
| Xiao 2025 Effect of thermal cycling on the mechanical properties of conventional, milled, and 3D-printed base resin materials: a comparative in… PMID:40115277 | 2025 | this review only | Hardness; Flexural strength | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | In vitro studies using dental resins for provisional restorations | In vitro specimens of denture base resins (4 studies) and provisional crown resin (1 study); hardness n=124 specimens, flexural strength n=40 specimens |
| Intervention | CAD/CAM-milled resins | CAD/CAM-milled PMMA and composite resins (n=5 studies) |
| Comparison | Resins obtained through 3D printing (SLA or DLP) | 3D-printed resins, SLA/DLP (n=5 studies) |
| Outcomes | Flexural strength and hardness | Hardness (4 studies); flexural strength (3 study outcomes from 2 studies) |
| Study designs | In vitro studies | In vitro studies (n=5) |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Partial Yes | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Partial Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Low | no |