Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost, production time, clinical performance, and patient satisfaction of 3D printing workflows in prosthodontics compared to conventional and subtractive methods. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify studies published between 2015 and 2025 that directly compared digital additive workflows with analogue or subtractive workflows. Studies were eligible if they included prosthodontic treatments such as dentures, crowns, or implant-supported prostheses and reported at least one relevant outcome. The primary outcomes were cost, time efficiency, clinical accuracy (e.g., marginal adaptation, fit), and patient satisfaction. Included studies were methodologically evaluated using MINORS scale and the risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 3D printing workflows demonstrated reduced production time and cost in comparison to conventional or subtractive methods. Clinical outcomes were generally comparable or superior, particularly regarding adaptation and fit. Patient satisfaction was favourable in most studies, although reporting varied. Long-term follow-up was limited, which constrains the interpretation of sustained clinical performance. Conclusions: These findings suggest that 3D printing can serve as an efficient and cost-effective alternative in prosthodontic fabrication, with clinical results comparable to those already established. Further research is needed to assess long-term clinical performance and cost-effectiveness in various clinical scenarios.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of moisture control strategies (including wet-bonding techniques, universal adhesives, and etching type) on dentin bonding performance in restorative dentistry. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, following PRISMA guidelines. Only in vitro and ex vivo studies comparing wet- and dry-bonding protocols, using human dentin substrates, and reporting microtensile bond strength (μTBS) were included. The data were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis and the methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS tool. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, eight of which were included in this meta-analysis. The moisture control strategies significantly influenced the bonding outcomes, with ethanol and acetone wet bonding yielding higher μTBS and enhanced hybrid layer morphology. The universal adhesives performed effectively under both moist and dry conditions, although their performance varied by the adhesive composition and solvent system. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant advantage for hydrated dentin (SMD = +1.20; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.86; p < 0.001), with the moist and ethanol-treated substrates outperforming the dry and over-wet surfaces. The long-term durability was better preserved with ethanol and acetone pretreatments and the adjunctive use of chlorhexidine. Conclusions: Moisture conditions influence dentin bond strength, but modern universal adhesives show consistent bonding performance across different moisture conditions. Solvent-wet-bonding protocols, particularly with ethanol or acetone, enhance the immediate and long-term performance. While the current evidence is limited by the in vitro designs and heterogeneity, the findings demonstrate protocol flexibility and highlight strategies to optimize adhesion in clinical practice. Future clinical trials are necessary to validate these approaches under real-world conditions.

The aim of this study was to compare the interproximal contact tightness of lateral teeth after restoring adjacent proximal walls with four types of direct adherent biomaterials. Distal and mesial boxes were prepared on 160 artificial right first and second upper molars. Each set of 40 pairs of boxes was restored using one bulk biomaterial: Equia Forte Fil HT (GC), Cention^® Forte (IVOCLAR VIVADENT), Admira Fusion x-tra (VOCO), or 3M^TMFiltek^TM One Bulk Fill. The mean difference in the passing-through force varied from sound to restored surfaces immediately after application, as well as at 7 and 14 days after: Equia Forte Fil HT—4.07 ± 0.01, 4.08 ± 0.01, and 4.11 ± 0.01; Cention^® Forte—3.30 ± 0.01, 3.50 ± 0.01, and 3.56 ± 0.01; Admira Fusion x-tra—4.10 ± 0.01, 4.13 ± 0.01, and 4.13 ± 0.01; 3M^TMFiltek^TM One Bulk Fill—4.08 ± 0.01, 4.09 ± 0.01, and 4.07 ± 0.01 (p < 0.05). The passing-through force of the restored contact areas showed significantly higher values when compared to those for the sound surfaces, and among them, all biomaterials presented similar values, except for Cention^® Forte. The potential clinical relevance of this study relates to better knowing the most appropriate restorative material for large proximal caries on adjacent surfaces from the outset of the treatment protocol.

Objectives: To compare artificial intelligence (AI) crown design with expert or non-AI computer-aided (CAD) design for single-unit tooth and implant-supported crowns across efficiency, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched from 2016 to 2025 with citation chasing. Eligible studies directly contrasted artificial intelligence-generated or artificial intelligence-assisted crown designs with human design in clinical, ex vivo, or in silico settings. Primary outcomes were design time, marginal and internal fit, morphology and occlusion, and mechanical performance. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for non-randomized clinical studies, QUIN for bench studies, and PROBAST + AI for computational investigations, with TRIPOD + AI items mapped descriptively. Given heterogeneity in settings and endpoints, a narrative synthesis was used. Results: A total of 14 studies met inclusion criteria, including a clinical patient study, multiple ex vivo experiments, and in silico evaluations. Artificial intelligence design reduced design time by between 40% and 90% relative to expert computer-aided design or manual workflows. Marginal and internal fit for artificial intelligence and human designs were statistically equivalent in multiple comparisons. Mechanical performance matched technician designs in load-to-fracture testing, and modeling indicated stress distributions similar to natural teeth. Overall risk of bias was judged as some concerns across tiers. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence crown design delivers efficiency gains while showing short-term technical comparability across fit, morphology, occlusion, and strength for single-unit crowns in predominantly bench and in silico evidence, with limited patient-level feasibility data. Prospective clinical trials with standardized, preregistered endpoints are needed to confirm durability, generalizability, and patient-relevant outcomes, and to establish whether short-term technical advantages translate into clinical benefit.

Background: Whether nanoengineered titanium surfaces confer superior implant stability beyond modern microrough controls remains uncertain. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidance: comprehensive multi-database searching with de-duplication; dual independent screening, full-text assessment, and standardized data extraction for predefined outcomes (implant stability quotient [ISQ], mechanical anchorage by removal/push-out/pull-out torque, and histologic bone-to-implant contact). Risk of bias was appraised with RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized clinical studies, and CAMARADES (animal experimentation). The certainty of clinical evidence was summarized using GRADE. Results: Across animal models, nanoengineered surfaces consistently improved early osseointegration indices (higher removal torque and bone-to-implant contact at initial healing). In clinical comparative studies, nanoengineered implants showed modest, time-limited gains in early stability (ISQ) versus microrough titanium. By 3–6 months, between-group differences typically diminished, and no consistent advantages were demonstrated for survival or marginal bone outcomes at later follow-up. Methodologic heterogeneity (surface chemistries, timepoints, outcome definitions) and small clinical samples limited quantitative synthesis. Overall, risk-of-bias concerns ranged from some concerns to high in non-randomized studies; the certainty of clinical evidence was low. Conclusions: Nanofeatured titanium surfaces improve early osseointegration but do not demonstrate a consistent long-term advantage over modern microrough implants. Current evidence supports an early osseointegration benefit without clear long-term clinical advantage over contemporary microrough implants. Adequately powered, head-to-head trials with standardized stability endpoints and ≥12-month follow-up are needed to determine whether early gains translate into patient-important outcomes.

This scoping review mapped the clinical readiness of directly additively manufactured (AM) dental ceramics for single-unit definitive restorations (crowns, veneers, and partial-coverage restorations) using a predefined review-specific five-tier readiness framework (R1–R5) designed to organize evidence maturity from restoration-relevant foundational studies to comparative clinical evidence. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO (Dentistry and Oral Sciences Sources), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to February 2026, with citation tracking. Thirty-five sources were included: 31 in vitro studies and 4 clinical studies. Evidence clustered in preclinical tiers, with most studies classified as restoration-level in vitro investigations (R2, 22/35) or foundational specimen-level studies explicitly linked to restorative performance (R1, 9/35); only one feasibility study reached R3 (1/35), three studies provided comparative clinical evidence (R4, 3/35), and no R5-level evidence was identified. The additively manufactured definitive restorations evaluated were zirconia-based. Most restoration-level studies addressed zirconia crowns (18/35), with fewer studies focusing on veneers/laminates (5/35) and occlusal veneers/tabletops (2/35). Across AM routes (most commonly vat photopolymerization ceramic workflows and nanoparticle jetting) outcomes focused on fit/adaptation, manufacturing accuracy, mechanical performance, and aging simulations; clinical studies reported short- to mid-term performance using standardized evaluation criteria. Overall, the evidence suggests technical feasibility and increasing restoration-level evaluation under controlled conditions, but clinical applicability remains preliminary because higher-readiness clinical evidence is still limited. Future work should prioritize standardized reporting, clinically relevant aging/fatigue paradigms, and longer-term comparative clinical studies.