Primary study · included by 1 review

Physical, Mechanical, and Anti-Biofilm Formation Properties of CAD-CAM Milled or 3D Printed Denture Base Resins: In Vitro Analysis.

Freitas 2022 · Freitas Rodrigo Falcão Carvalho Porto de, Duarte Simone, Feitosa Sabrina, et al. · Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2023

Included by

Mechanical Performance of CAD/CAM-Milled Versus 3D-Printed Resins for Prosthetic Applications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Freitas 2022 · Table 1; Figures 3 and 6; reference list
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Hardness
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
SMD 2.71 [-0.90, 6.33]3 studies · 108 participantsGRADE not reported
Hardness (Vickers, Shore, Barcol; standardized)
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
Meta-regression coefficient (beta) -0.314 studiesGRADE not reported
Hardness
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
SMD 2.27 [-0.86, 5.40]3 studies · 104 participantsGRADE not reported
Hardness (Vickers, Shore, Barcol; standardized)
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
SMD 2.92 [0.34, 5.49]4 studies · 124 participantsGRADE not reported
Hardness
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
SMD 2.50 [-0.90, 5.92]3 studies · 96 participantsGRADE not reported
Hardness
CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP)
SMD 4.00 [3.15, 4.87]3 studies · 64 participantsGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.