Background/Objectives: Digital prosthodontics increasingly utilize both additive (3D printing) and subtractive Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM), yet comprehensive comparisons remain limited. This scoping review evaluates their relative performance across prosthodontic applications. Methods: Systematic searches (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, 2015–2025) identified 28 studies (27 in vitro, 1 retrospective). Data were extracted on accuracy, efficiency, materials, and outcomes. Results: CAD/CAM milling demonstrated superior accuracy for fixed prostheses, with marginal gaps for milled zirconia (123.89 ± 56.89 µm), comparable to optimized 3D-printed interim crowns (123.87 ± 67.42 µm, p = 0.760). For removable prostheses, milled denture bases achieved a trueness of 65 ± 6 µm, while SLA-printed dentures post-processed at 40 °C for 30 min showed the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) (30 min/40 °C group). Three-dimensional printing excelled in material efficiency ( 30–40%) and complex geometries, such as hollow-pontic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) (2.0 mm wall thickness reduced gaps by 33%). Build orientation (45° for crowns, 30–45° for veneers) and post-processing protocols significantly influenced accuracy. Milled resins exhibited superior color stability (ΔE00: 1.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3D-printed: 4.5 ± 1.1, p < 0.05), while 3D-printed Co-Cr frameworks (SLM) showed marginal fits of 8.4 ± 3.2 µm, surpassing milling (130.3 ± 13.8 µm). Digital workflows reduced chairside time by 29% (154.31 ± 13.19 min vs. 218.00 ± 20.75 min). All methods met clinical thresholds (<120 µm gaps). Conclusions: Milling remains preferred for high-precision fixed prostheses, while 3D printing offers advantages in material efficiency, complex designs, and removable applications. Critical gaps include long-term clinical data and standardized protocols. Future research should prioritize hybrid workflows, advanced materials, and AI-driven optimization to bridge technical and clinical gaps.

The growing challenge of biofilm-associated infections in dentistry necessitates advanced solutions. This review highlights the potential of smart bioactive and antibacterial materials—bioactive glass ceramics (BGCs), silver nanoparticle (AgNP)-doped polymers, and pH-responsive chitosan coatings—in transforming restorative dentistry. BGCs reduce biofilms by >90% while promoting bone integration. AgNP-polymers effectively combat S. mutans and C. albicans but require controlled dosing (<0.3 wt% in PMMA) to avoid cytotoxicity. Chitosan coatings enable pH-triggered drug release, disrupting acidic biofilms. Emerging innovations like quaternary ammonium compounds, graphene oxide hybrids, and 4D-printed hydrogels offer on-demand antimicrobial and regenerative functions. However, clinical translation depends on addressing cytotoxicity, standardizing antibiofilm testing (≥3-log CFU/mL reduction), and ensuring long-term efficacy. These smart materials pave the way for self-defending restorations, merging infection control with tissue regeneration. Future advancements may integrate AI-driven design for multifunctional, immunomodulatory dental solutions.

Despite advances in dental materials and digital color registration systems, esthetic matching remains a clinical challenge for both dental students and experienced professionals. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted through bibliographic searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases from January 2015 to January 2026. The evidence was synthesized using a four-dimensional analytical framework encompassing technological, cognitive–psychological, educational, and clinical-contextual factors. Quantitative synthesis revealed substantial variability in shade matching success rates, with intraoral scanners demonstrating pass rates ranging from 31.3% to 78.2% across devices, while spectrophotometers achieved superior repeatability (ICC > 0.9) but faced interpretive barriers. Cognitive load theory explains the performance deterioration, with novices being particularly susceptible to retinal fatigue and metamerism under non-standardized lighting conditions. The proposed paradigm shift involves redefining shade selection from a purely technical task to a cognitive skill that requires deliberate perceptual calibration, structured educational protocols, and hybrid digital visual workflows. To improve esthetic predictability, educational programs need to integrate longitudinal training in color science with objective feedback mechanisms. Clinical workflows should adopt hybrid calibration-centric protocols that position technology as a verification tool, rather than a replacement for clinical judgment. Understanding the multidimensional nature of shade matching difficulty enables the development of evidence-based educational protocols and clinical workflows, ultimately improving esthetic outcomes.

Cementation of indirect restorations has undergone a profound change over the past century, evolving from a philosophy of purely mechanical cementation to sophisticated biomaterials science based on adhesion. The aim of this narrative review is to provide essential context for understanding contemporary clinical decision-making. A key aspect is the structural and compositional characteristics of enamel and dentin as bonding substrates, underlining why enamel remains the gold standard, while dentin continues to present significant challenges. The synthesis is based on evidence of adhesive strategies for the four main classes of contemporary restorative materials, such as glass-ceramics (lithium disilicate and leucite), polycrystalline zirconia, resin-matrix ceramics (hybrid ceramics), and indirect composites. Each material was detailed in terms of surface penetration (e.g., hydrofluoric acid etching and air abrasion), chemical coupling (e.g., silanization and MDP-based primers), and appropriate resin cement selection (light-cured, dual-cured, or self-adhesive). A step-by-step clinical protocol is synthesized based on current evidence, integrating critical techniques such as immediate dentin sealing and optimized polymerization. This review concludes that while adhesive resin cements provide predictable long-term results, significant challenges remain, guiding future clinical research and innovation.

Background: Computer-guided static implant surgery (CGSIS) is widely adopted to enhance the precision of dental implant placement. However, significant heterogeneity in reported accuracy values complicates evidence-based clinical decision-making. This variance is likely attributable to a fundamental lack of standardization in the methodologies used to assess dimensional accuracy. Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically map, synthesize, and analyze the clinical methodologies used to quantify the dimensional accuracy of CGSIS. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase was performed from inception to October 2025. Clinical studies quantitatively comparing planned versus achieved implant positions in human patients were included. Data were charted on study design, guide support type, data acquisition methods, reference systems for superimposition, measurement software, and accuracy metrics. Results: The analysis of 21 included studies revealed extensive methodological heterogeneity. Key findings included the predominant use of two distinct reference systems: post-operative CBCT (n = 12) and intraoral scanning with scan bodies (n = 6). A variety of proprietary and third-party software packages (e.g., coDiagnostiX, Geomagic, Mimics) were employed for superimposition, utilizing different alignment algorithms. Critically, this heterogeneity in measurement approach directly manifests in widely varying reported values for core accuracy metrics. In addition, the definitions and reporting of core accuracy metrics—specifically global coronal deviation (range of reported means: 0.55–1.70 mm), global apical deviation (0.76–2.50 mm), and angular deviation (2.11–7.14°)—were inconsistent. For example, these metrics were also reported using different statistical summaries (e.g., means with standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges). Conclusions: The comparability and synthesis of evidence on CGSIS accuracy are significantly limited by non-standardized measurement approaches. The reported ranges of deviation values are a direct consequence of this methodological heterogeneity, not a comparison of implant system performance. Our findings highlight an urgent need for a consensus-based minimum reporting standard for future clinical research in this field to ensure reliable and translatable evidence.