Mechanical properties of 3D printed prosthetic materials compared with milled and conventional processing: A review and meta of in vitro studies

Statement of problem. Three-dimensional (3D) additive manufacturing (AM) is an evolving technology in dentistry, proposed as an alternative to subtractive milling manufacture (MM) or conventional processing. However, a systematic review of the use of AM technology instead of milling or conventional processing is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the mechanical properties of 3D printed prosthetic materials compared with MM and conventional techniques. Material and methods. An electronic search of the literature was conducted on the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria were in vitro studies published in the last 5 years, in English or Italian, and with 3D AM printed dental prosthetic materials. Data extraction was focused on dental prosthetic materials (ceramics, polymers, and metals) and their mechanical properties: flexural strength, fracture load, hardness, roughness, removable partial denture (RPD) fit accuracy, trueness, marginal discrepancy, and internal fit. Data considered homogenous were subjected to meta-analysis using the Stata17 statistical software program (95% confidence interval [CI]; a=.05). Since all variables were continuous, the Hedge g measure was calculated. A fixed-effects model was used for I2=0%, while the statistical analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with I2>0%. Results. From a total of 3624 articles, 2855 studies were selected, and 76 studies included after full-text reading. The roughness of AM-printed ceramics generally increased compared with that of conventional processing while the marginal discrepancy was comparable both for ceramics and polymers. The flexural strength, hardness, and fracture load of AM-printed polymers were statistically lower than those of the conventional group (P<.05). No significant difference was detected in terms of hardness, roughness, marginal discrepancy, fracture load, trueness, or internal fit between the AM and MM techniques (P>.05). Milling techniques showed significantly higher values of flexural strength (Hedge g=-3.88; 95% CI,-7.20 to-0.58; P=.02), also after aging (Hedge g=-3.29; 95% CI,-6.41 to-0.17; P=.04), compared with AM printing. Conclusions. AM is comparable with MM in terms of mechanical properties, in particular with polymeric materials. The flexural strength of AM-printed prostheses is lower than with conventional and MM techniques, as are the parameters of hardness and fracture load, while the marginal discrepancy is similar to that of MM and conventional techniques. AM prostheses are commonly used for interim crowns and fixed partial dentures, as their rigidity and fracture resistance cannot support mastication forces for extended periods. More comparative studies are needed.