• Do zirconia fixed dental prost...

Treffer: Do zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated by additive manufacturing offer comparable accuracy to subtractive manufacturing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Title:
Do zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated by additive manufacturing offer comparable accuracy to subtractive manufacturing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors:
Mou Z; Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Engineering Research Center of Oral Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Guangzhou, China., Huang L; Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Engineering Research Center of Oral Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Guangzhou, China., Alhotan A; Department of Dental Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., Li P; Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Engineering Research Center of Oral Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Guangzhou, China., Huang J; Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Engineering Research Center of Oral Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Source:
Journal of prosthodontic research [J Prosthodont Res] 2026 Jan 16; Vol. 70 (1), pp. 17-29. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 May 22.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Comparative Study
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Japan Prosthodontic Society Country of Publication: Japan NLM ID: 101490359 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2212-4632 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 18831958 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Prosthodont Res Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2020- : Tokyo : Japan Prosthodontic Society
Original Publication: Amsterdam : Elsevier
MeSH Terms:
Zirconium* , Denture, Partial, Fixed* , Dental Prosthesis Design*/methods , Computer-Aided Design* , Dental Materials* , Dental Prosthesis* , Denture Design*/methods, Humans
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Accuracy; Additive manufacturing; Fixed dental prosthesis; Subtractive manufacturing; Systematic review
Substance Nomenclature:
C6V6S92N3C (Zirconium)
S38N85C5G0 (zirconium oxide)
0 (Dental Materials)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20250521 Date Completed: 20260118 Latest Revision: 20260122
Update Code:
20260123
DOI:
10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_24_00324
PMID:
40399070
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

Purpose: This meta-analysis answers the research question, how does the accuracy of additive manufacturing (AM) compare to that of subtractive manufacturing (SM) for fabricating zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?
Study Selection: Relevant studies were systematically searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science and screened following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines; the inclusion criteria include studies that evaluate the accuracy of FDPs fabricated using AM and SM. Studies were excluded if they did not compare AM and SM, did not use zirconia, or did not assess accuracy. Study quality was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's and Begg's tests.
Results: Sixteen in vitro studies were included. The meta-analysis revealed that FDPs fabricated via AM demonstrated significantly lower trueness compared to that of SM in the intaglio surface (P < 0.01; SMD: 1.37; 95% CI: [0.80, 1.95]; I <sup>2</sup> = 90%, P < 0.01), marginal area (P < 0.01; SMD: 1.83; 95% CI: [1.17, 2.49]; I <sup>2</sup> = 91%, P < 0.01), and external surface (P < 0.01; SMD: 2.15; 95% CI: [1.19, 3.12]; I <sup>2</sup> = 91%, P < 0.01). AM demonstrated significantly higher precision compared to that of SM (P < 0.01; SMD: -1.89; 95% CI: [-2.77, -1.01]; I <sup>2</sup> = 77%, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: AM technologies exhibit lower trueness compared to that of SM and offer superior precision. Material jetting achieves trueness comparable to that of SM. Both AM and SM satisfy clinical accuracy requirements.