Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of using additive manufacturing (AM) for dental ceramic fabrication in comparison with subtractive manufacturing (SM), and to evaluate the effect of the type of AM technology on dental ceramic fabrication.
Materials and methods: A search was conducted electronically in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Cochran Library databases, and also by other methods (table of contents screening, backward and forward citations, and grey literature search) up to February 12, 2022, to identify records evaluating additive manufacturing of ceramics for dental purposes in comparison with subtractive manufacturing. A minimum of 2 review authors conducted tstudy selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Quality assessment was performed with Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and the quantitative synthesis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program (CMA, Biostat Inc). Hedges's g for effect size was calculated, with 0.2 as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 and prediction interval (PI) statistics. Publication bias was investigated with funnel plots and grey literature search. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.
Results: A total of 28 studies were included for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis; 11 in vitro studies on accuracy, 1 in vivo study on color, and 16 in vitro studies on physical and mechanical properties. Meta-analysis showed overall higher accuracy for SM compared with AM, with medium effect size (0.679, CI: 0.173 to 1.185, p = 0.009) and also for marginal (g = 1.05, CI: 0.344 to 1.760, p = 0.004), occlusal (g = 2.24, CI: 0.718 to 3.766, p = 0.004), and total (g = 4.544, CI: -0.234 to 9.323, p = 0.062) with large effect size; whereas AM had higher accuracy than SM with small effect size for the external (g = -0.238, CI: -1.215 to 0.739), p = 0.633), and internal (g = -0.403, CI: -1.273 to 0.467, p = 0.364) surfaces. For technology, self-glazed zirconia protocol had the smallest effect size (g = -0.049, CI: -0.878 to 0.78, p = 0.907), followed by stereolithography (g = 0.305, CI: -0.289 to 0.9, p = 0.314), and digital light processing (g = 1.819, CI: 0.662 to 2.976, p = 0.002) technologies. Flexural strength was higher for ceramics made by SM in comparison to AM with large effect size (g = -2.868, CI: -4.371 to -1.365, p < 0.001). Only 1 study reported on color, favoring ceramics made through combined AM and SM.
Conclusions: Subtractive manufacturing had better overall accuracy, particularly for the marginal and occlusal areas, higher flexural strength, and more favorable hardness, fracture toughness, porosity, fatigue, and volumetric shrinkage; whereas AM had more favorable elastic modulus and wettability. Both methods had favorable biocompatibility. All studies on accuracy and mechanical properties were in vitro, with high heterogeneity and low to very low certainty of evidence. There is a lack of studies on color match and esthetics.
Keywords: 3D printing; Additive manufacturing; CAD-CAM; accuracy; alumina; biocompatibility; ceramics; color; fatigue; flexural strength; hardness; mechanical; milling; physical; porosity; roughness; subtractive manufacturing; toughness; wettability; zirconia.
© 2022 by the American College of Prosthodontists.