Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed composite resins have been marketed as materials for definitive restorations. However, limited information is available regarding the stability of the adhesive interface and the efficiency of 3D-printed composite resins. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the integrity of the marginal adhesive interface before and after thermal and mechanical fatigue of an initial formulation of a 3D-printed composite resin and to evaluate the efficiency of this manufacturing method. Freshly extracted molars were prepared for onlays and adhesively restored with either 3D-printed composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus) (Group 3D), milled composite resin (Tetric CAD) (Group MCOMP), milled PMMA (Telio CAD) (Group PMMA), and milled lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) (Group EM). Marginal analysis was performed under a scanning electron microscope before and after fatigue by thermomechanical cyclic loading, and initial and terminal percentages of continuous margin (%CM) were compared. The time required for the production of each type of restoration was recorded, and the production costs were also compared. Before aging, 3D, MCOMP, and EM presented comparable values of %CM (69.8%, 75.9%, and 63.1%, respectively) that were statistically significantly higher (P<.05) than those of PMMA (45.1%). After aging, 3D and EM had comparable results (44.7% and 43.7%, respectively), which were lower than those of the MCOMP group (68.5%) but higher than those of the PMMA group (20.5%). Regarding time efficiency, 3D printing took less time than MCOMP or PMMA if more than 8 restorations were fabricated. For the production costs, 3D printing was 5.5, 8.7, and 10.2 times less expensive than PMMA, MCOMP, and EM, respectively. The initial equipment cost was also lower for the additive manufacturing method. However, 3D printing did not always considerably reduce waste. In terms of marginal adaptation, the evaluated initial formulation of a 3D-printed composite resin behaved similarly to other well-established definitive restoration materials and better than milled PMMA, both before and after fatigue. Three-dimensionally printed resins present advantages in terms of equipment and consumable costs, even for a single restoration, but also for production time when more than 8 restorations were fabricated.

Current restorative methods of restoring worn or eroded dentition present drawbacks that may deter dentists or patients from pursuing complete mouth rehabilitation. A novel additive manufacturing approach using 3D-printed definitive composite resin restorations is described as a less technique-sensitive and more cost-effective alternative. These restorations are straightforward to repair, modify, or replace.