This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcome, internal gap, trueness, precision, and biocompatibility of 3D-printed (AM) compared to milled (SM) zirconia restorations. A thorough search of Internet databases was conducted up to September 2023. The search retrieved studies compared AM zirconia to SM zirconia restorations regarding clinical outcome, fit, trueness, precision, and biocompatibility. Of 1736 records, only 59 were screened for eligibility, and 22 records were included in this review. The quality of studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2), and the Modified Consort Statement. One clinical study exhibited a low risk of bias. All laboratory studies revealed some bias concerns. Short-term observation showed 100 % survival with no signs of periodontal complications. 3D-printed zirconia crowns showed statistically significant lower ΔE and a better match to adjacent teeth (p ≤ 0.5). The fit, trueness, and precision vary with the printing technique and the tooth surface. 3D-printed zirconia crowns provide better aesthetic color and contour match to adjacent natural teeth than milled crowns. Both 3D printing and milling result in crowns within the clinically acceptable internal and marginal fit. Except for nanoparticle jetting, the marginal gap of SM crowns was smaller than AM crowns, however, both were clinically acceptable. Laminate veneers might be more accurately produced by 3D printing. 3D-printed axial surface trueness was better than milled axial surfaces. Long-term RCTs are recommended to confirm the clinical applicability of 3D-printed restorations. Internal fit and gap, precision, and trueness are fundamental requirements for successful dental restorations. Both techniques produce restorations with clinically acceptable marginal and internal fit. Axial surfaces and narrow or constricted areas favored 3D-printed than conventionally milled zirconia.

This systematic review aimed to compare the physical-mechanical properties of 3D-printed (additively manufactured (AM)) zirconia compared to conventionally milled (subtractive manufactured: SM) zirconia specimens. A thorough search of Internet databases was conducted up to September 2023. The search retrieved studies that evaluated AM zirconia specimens and restorations regarding the physical-mechanical properties and mechanical behavior of zirconia. The main topic focused on 3Y-TZP. However, records of 4YSZ and 5YSZ were also included to gather more comprehensive evidence on additively manufactured zirconia ceramic. The quality of studies was assessed using the ROB2 tool, Newcastle Ottawa scale, and the Modified Consort Statement. Of 1736 records, 57 were assessed for eligibility, and 38 records were included in this review, only two clinical trials meet the inclusion criteria and 36 records were laboratory studies. There were no signs of mechanical complications and wear to antagonists with short-term clinical observation. SM thin specimens ≤1.5 mm showed statistically significant higher flexural strength than AM zirconia (p ≤ 0.01), while thicker specimens showed comparable outcomes (p > 0.5). The fracture resistance of dental restorations was dependent on the aging protocol, restoration type, and thickness. The bond strength of veneering ceramic to zirconia core was comparable. The results pooled from two short-term clinical trials showed no signs of mechanical or biological complications of additively manufactured 3Y-TZP zirconia crowns. The flexural strength might depend on the specimens' thickness, but it showed promising results to be used in clinical applications, taking into account the printing technique and orientation, material composition (yttria content), solid loading, and sintering parameters. 3D-printed restorations fracture resistance improved when adhered to human teeth. The veneering ceramic bond was comparable to milled zirconia specimens. Long-term RCTs are recommended to confirm the mechanical behavior of 3D-printed restorations.

The evidence on the effect of printing orientation on dimensional accuracy and properties of resinous dental models is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of printing orientation on the accuracy and properties of additively manufactured resinous dental models, besides the cost, material consumption, and time efficiency at different orientations. A comprehensive web search (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane) was performed in July 2024 without language restrictions. The included studies were assessed using the modified consort statement for laboratory studies on dental materials. The outcomes were accuracy and surface quality, besides the cost and time efficiency of additively manufactured dental models printed in different directions. Following PRISMA guidelines, 14 records were included. Most records favored horizontally printed models with minor controversies regarding accuracy, material consumption, time, and cost efficiency. While orientation can influence surface quality, it is often more significantly affected by factors such as the printing technology used, the material properties, and the layer thickness. Horizontal orientation has proven to be the most efficient for producing dental models, particularly for single-model manufacturing, due to its superior time and cost savings. However, large-scale and overnight massive production favors the vertical orientation since the platform accommodates twice to triple the models' numbers as horizontal orientation. The majority of studies favor horizontal orientation for its accuracy. Choosing the optimal orientation in additive manufacturing not only ensures precision of dental models, improving the fit of restorations and prostheses, but also leads to significant reductions in production time, material usage, and energy consumption, ultimately minimizing environmental impact. Not applicable.

Purpose: Various oral rehabilitation approaches are available for severely worn dentition. However, evidence-based guidelines for permanent treatment are limited. This review aims to investigate clinical observational findings and compare in-vitro outcomes of thin and ultrathin occlusal veneers using different materials and approaches.Methods: An electronic search of online databases, such as PubMed (MEDLINE), BioMed Central (BMC), Cochrane, and Scopus, was performed for the 2009 - Jun 2021 period, following the PRISMA 2020 criteria. The reports sought for retrieval were all the articles evaluating the clinical outcomes of permanent full-mouth rehabilitation, and all in-vitro records that investigated and compared fracture strength, survival rate, and modes of failure of ultrathin (0.3 - 0.6 mm), thin (0.5 - 0.8 mm), and thick (0.8-1.5 mm) occlusal veneer restorations, with regard to the available indirect restorative materials. The Newcastle Ottawa risk of bias criteria was used to judge the clinical studies and a modified consort statement was used for the evaluation of in-vitro studies. The data of the included studies were extracted and grouped based on the similarity of the outcomes and study protocols. Data heterogeneity determined the qualitative and quantitative grouping of the results.Results: Two clinical and 17 in-vitro studies were included. Data exhibited heterogeneity within the materials, variables, testing protocols and observation periods. Therefore, only qualitative synthesis of the results was feasible. Clinically used 1 mm lithium disilicate overlays and ultrathin one-step no-prep polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) occlusal veneers exhibited very high success and survival rates. The analysis of in-vitro studies exhibited variable survival rates and fracture load values, based on materials, thickness, and restorative approaches used.Conclusion: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it can be concluded that the clinical outcomes of thin and ultrathin occlusal veneers/overlays are auspicious. In-vitro experimental results support the usage of the thin and ultrathin occlusal veneers.