The physical-mechanical properties of 3D-printed versus conventional milled zirconia for dental clinical applications: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM OF STUDY: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".