Primary study · included by 1 review

Henderson 2022

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

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

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Henderson 2022 · Table 2; Reference 28

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Fracture resistance (N) Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing) vs 3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing) · Not applicable (single test)	SMD -1.54 [-3.63, 0.55]	4 studies · 154 participants	GRADE not reported
Fracture resistance (N) Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing) vs 3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing) · Not applicable (single test)	SMD -2.46 [-3.60, -1.31]	3 studies · 124 participants	GRADE not reported
Fracture resistance (N) Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing) vs 3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing) · Not applicable (single test)	SMD -1.57 [-4.55, 1.41]	3 studies · 94 participants	GRADE not reported
Fracture resistance (N) Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing) vs 3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing) · Not applicable (single test)	SMD -1.16 [-3.92, 1.59]	3 studies · 114 participants	GRADE not reported
Fracture resistance (N) Milled CAD/CAM resin-based prostheses (subtractive manufacturing) vs 3D-printed resin prostheses (additive manufacturing) · Not applicable (single test)	SMD -0.93 [-3.30, 1.44]	3 studies · 130 participants	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.