Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42345916

Mechanical Performance of Milled CAD/CAM Versus 3D-Printed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Flexural Strength and Fracture Resistance.

Chauca-Bajaña Luis, Zambrano Manzaba Gabriela Guadalupe, Ordoñez-Balladares Andrea, et al. · Dentistry journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/dj14060325

Findings

Population Dental prostheses and specimens for provisional or definitive restorations tested in vitro

6 findings

Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Fracture resistance (N)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro)
SMD -1.54 [-3.63, 0.55]
GRADE not reported
4 studies · 154 participants
Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Fracture resistance (N)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting Henderson 2022
SMD -1.57 [-4.55, 1.41]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 94 participants
Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Fracture resistance (N)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting Corbani 2020
SMD -1.16 [-3.92, 1.59]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 114 participants
Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Fracture resistance (N)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro) · Sensitivity analysis: excluding Handermann 2024
SMD -2.46 [-3.60, -1.31]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 124 participants
Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Fracture resistance (N)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro) · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting Park 2024
SMD -0.93 [-3.30, 1.44]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 130 participants
Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)Flexural strength (MPa)
Not applicable (single test) · Laboratory (in vitro)
SMD 3.70 [0.80, 6.59]
GRADE not reported
5 studies · 110 participants

Included primary studies 16

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Park 2020
matched by author and year (probable)
NR1 other reviewFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Corbani 2020
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Corbani 2020
Effect of material thickness on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of 3D-printed composite crowns.
PMID:32789310
2020this review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Gad 2024
A comparative study of strength and surface properties of permanent 3D-printed resins with CAD-CAM milled fixed dental prostheses.
PMID:39568135
2024this review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Handermann 2024
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Handermann 2024
Load-bearing capacity of 3D-printed incisor partial-coverage crowns made from zirconia and composite.
PMID:38684407
2024this review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Henderson 2022
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Henderson 2022
Failure load of milled, 3D-printed, and conventional chairside-dispensed interim 3-unit fixed dental prostheses.
PMID:34895902
2022this review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Mahran 2025
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Mahran 2025
Evaluation of a 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composite versus a milled resin composite for flexural strength, wear and color stability.
PMID:40234948
2025this review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Park 2020
Flexural Strength of 3D-Printing Resin Materials for Provisional Fixed Dental Prostheses.
PMID:32911702
2020this review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Park 2024
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Park 2024
Comparison of Fracture Strength of Milled and 3D-Printed Crown Materials According to Occlusal Thickness.
PMID:39336386
2024this review onlyFracture resistance (N)not extracted yet
Sahin 2023
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Turkaslan 2022
matched by author and year (probable)
NRthis review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet
Turkaslan 2022
Effect of printing orientation on the fracture strength of additively manufactured 3-unit interim fixed dental prostheses after aging.
PMID:35526752
2022this review onlyFlexural strength (MPa)not extracted yet

Overlap with other reviews

Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationDental prostheses and specimens for provisional or definitive restorations (in vitro)Dental prostheses and specimens tested in vitro (flexural strength n=5 studies; fracture resistance n=4 studies)
InterventionCAD/CAM milled resin prostheses (subtractive manufacturing)CAD/CAM milled resin composite, PMMA, provisional resin, hybrid ceramic and zirconia
Comparison3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing)3D-printed resin composite, PMMA, provisional and permanent resins, bis-acryl, zirconia
OutcomesPrimary: flexural strength (MPa), fracture resistance (N); secondary: elastic modulus, Weibull modulus, failure modeFlexural strength (n=5); fracture resistance (n=4)
Study designsIn vitro experimental studies; controlled laboratory studies; randomized in vitro comparisons; clinical studies if fracture resistance evaluated mechanicallyIn vitro experimental or comparative studies (n=9)
TimingNot specifiedNot 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.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalPartial YesNono
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateYesYesyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalNoNoyes
8Included studies described in detailPartial YesPartial Yesyes
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: Partial Yes · NRSI: N/ANRSI: Partial Yes · RCT: N/Ano
10Funding of included studies reportedNoNoyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalRCT: Yes · NRSI: N/ANRSI: N/A · RCT: Yesno
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsNoNoyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalYesNono
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalYesYesyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallLowCritically Lowno