Primary study · included by 1 review
Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using milling, three-dimensional printing and conventional methods: An in vitro study.
Marothi 2026 · Marothi Sridevi, Mantena Satyanarayana Raju, Alla Rama Krishna, et al. · Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hardness CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | SMD 2.71 [-0.90, 6.33] | 3 studies · 108 participants | GRADE not reported |
Hardness (Vickers, Shore, Barcol; standardized) CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | Meta-regression coefficient (beta) -0.31 | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Hardness CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | SMD 2.27 [-0.86, 5.40] | 3 studies · 104 participants | GRADE 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 participants | GRADE not reported |
Hardness CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | SMD 2.50 [-0.90, 5.92] | 3 studies · 96 participants | GRADE not reported |
Hardness CAD/CAM-milled resins vs 3D-printed resins (SLA/DLP) | SMD 4.00 [3.15, 4.87] | 3 studies · 64 participants | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.