Background/Objectives: The growing adoption of digital technologies in prosthodontics has led to the widespread use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three-dimensional (3D) printing for dental prostheses. However, differences in mechanical performance, particularly flexural strength and fracture resistance, remain a concern. Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the flexural strength and fracture resistance of milled CAD/CAM and 3D-printed dental prostheses. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. In vitro studies comparing milled and 3D-printed prosthetic materials were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by multiple reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis using standardized mean differences (SMD) was conducted. Results: Five studies were included in the meta-analysis for flexural strength. Milled CAD/CAM materials demonstrated significantly higher flexural strength compared to 3D-printed resins (SMD = 3.70; 95% CI: 0.80–6.59; p = 0.012), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 93.3%). Fracture resistance results were inconsistent and influenced by individual studies, with sensitivity analyses showing variability in pooled estimates. Overall, the risk of bias was considered low, although some concerns were identified in randomization and blinding. Conclusions: CAD/CAM-milled materials exhibit superior flexural strength, while fracture resistance outcomes remain variable. Although 3D-printed materials may be clinically acceptable, further standardized studies are required to confirm their mechanical reliability.
Chauca-Bajaña et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: