Primary study · included by 1 review
Comparison of Fracture Strength of Milled and 3D-Printed Crown Materials According to Occlusal Thickness.
Park 2024 · Park Yeseul, Kim Jimin, Kang You-Jung, et al. · Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
Included by
| 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.