Comparison of volumetric loss and surface roughness of composite dental restorations obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods

Güntekin, Neslihan; Tunçdemir, Ali Rıza

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26269

Heliyon

2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26269

|View full text |Cite

Comparison of volumetric loss and surface roughness of composite dental restorations obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods

Neslihan Güntekin,

Ali Rıza Tunçdemir

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Enamel wear and fatigue resistance of 3D printed resin compared with lithium disilicate

Bora,

Lawson,

Givan

et al. 2024

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enamel wear and fatigue resistance of 3D printed resin compared with lithium disilicate

Bora,

Lawson,

Givan

et al. 2024

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in Dental Restorations: A Comprehensive Review of Machinable and 3D‐Printed Ceramic‐Reinforced Composites

Duarte,

Phark

2024

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis review aims to evaluate the current understanding and clinical applications of machinable ceramic‐reinforced composites (CRCs) and the emerging first generation of 3D‐printed CRCs in dental restorations.OverviewMachinable CRCs, introduced over a decade ago, have shown moderate success in short‐ to medium‐term clinical applications, particularly in low‐stress areas. However, their long‐term durability limitations, such as increased wear and marginal deterioration, restrict their use in high‐stress situations and full crowns. The first generation of 3D‐printed CRCs offers customization advantages but is still in early development and exhibits lower mechanical strength and higher wear rates than CAD‐CAM CRCs and traditional ceramics. Additionally, the classification and definitions surrounding CRCs remain ambiguous, as ADA categorizations do not clearly differentiate CRCs from ceramics, complicating clinical indication, usage, and billing practices.ConclusionMachinable CAD‐CAM CRCs are moderately successful in low‐stress applications, while 3D‐printed CRCs show limitations in wear resistance and durability, raising concerns for their use in definitive restorations. Both require further research and clinical validation.Clinical SignificanceMachinable CAD‐CAM CRCs are best suited for low‐stress applications, while 3D‐printed CRCs may be more appropriate for provisional use. Until long‐term clinical data are available, ceramics should be preferred for high‐stress or full‐coverage restorations. Clearer definitions for porcelain/ceramic and comprehensive application guidelines are urgently needed to support clinician decision‐making and improve patient outcomes.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Comparison of volumetric loss and surface roughness of composite dental restorations obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Enamel wear and fatigue resistance of 3D printed resin compared with lithium disilicate

Enamel wear and fatigue resistance of 3D printed resin compared with lithium disilicate

Advances in Dental Restorations: A Comprehensive Review of Machinable and 3D‐Printed Ceramic‐Reinforced Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About