Alvaro Della Bona1, Viviane Cantelli2, Vitor T Britto2, Kaue F Collares2, Jeffrey W Stansbury3. 1. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Campus I, BR285, Passo Fundo, RS, 99052-900, Brazil. Electronic address: dbona@upf.br. 2. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Campus I, BR285, Passo Fundo, RS, 99052-900, Brazil. 3. Department of Craniofacial Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present through a systematic review a qualitative analysis of studies published on stereolithography-based 3D printing of restorative materials and their clinical applicability. METHODS: The literature search was conducted based on the question: "What is the state-of-the-art of available restorative materials for 3D printing based on stereolithography?" Online search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) with no restriction for year of publication. Data are reported based on PRISMA, including publication details such as authors and their countries, year and journal of publication, and study design. The synthesis is focused on describing the dental restorative materials and properties evaluated, applied methods, 3D printers used and clinical applicability. RESULTS: Studies that fit the inclusion criteria were performed in Asia (21), Europe (16) and USA (10), mostly using polymer-based restorative materials (38) for 3D printing constructs. Stereolithographic-printed ceramic-based restorative structures were evaluated by 9 studies. Many studies reported on dimensional accuracy (14), strength (11) and surface morphology (9) of the printed structures. Antibacterial response, cytotoxicity, internal and marginal fit, fracture and wear resistance, density, viscosity, elastic modulus, hardness, structural shrinkage and reliability, degree of conversion, layer cure depth, fatigue, and color were also evaluated by the included studies. Many of them (11) published a proof of concept as an attempt to demonstrate the clinical feasibility and applicability of the technology to print restorative materials, but only 5 studies actually applied the 3D printed restorative structures in patients, which highlights an increasing interest but limited early-stage translation. SIGNIFICANCE: The fast expansion of stereolithographic-based 3D printing has been impressive and represents a great technological progress with significant disruptive potential. Dentistry has demonstrated an incredible willingness to adapt materials, methods and workflows to this promising digital technology. However, esthetic appearance, wear resistance, wet strength and dimensional accuracy are the main current clinical limitations restricting the progression to functional part production with 3D printing, which may explain the absence of clinical trials and reports on permanent/definitive dental restorative materials and structures.
OBJECTIVE: To present through a systematic review a qualitative analysis of studies published on stereolithography-based 3D printing of restorative materials and their clinical applicability. METHODS: The literature search was conducted based on the question: "What is the state-of-the-art of available restorative materials for 3D printing based on stereolithography?" Online search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) with no restriction for year of publication. Data are reported based on PRISMA, including publication details such as authors and their countries, year and journal of publication, and study design. The synthesis is focused on describing the dental restorative materials and properties evaluated, applied methods, 3D printers used and clinical applicability. RESULTS: Studies that fit the inclusion criteria were performed in Asia (21), Europe (16) and USA (10), mostly using polymer-based restorative materials (38) for 3D printing constructs. Stereolithographic-printed ceramic-based restorative structures were evaluated by 9 studies. Many studies reported on dimensional accuracy (14), strength (11) and surface morphology (9) of the printed structures. Antibacterial response, cytotoxicity, internal and marginal fit, fracture and wear resistance, density, viscosity, elastic modulus, hardness, structural shrinkage and reliability, degree of conversion, layer cure depth, fatigue, and color were also evaluated by the included studies. Many of them (11) published a proof of concept as an attempt to demonstrate the clinical feasibility and applicability of the technology to print restorative materials, but only 5 studies actually applied the 3D printed restorative structures in patients, which highlights an increasing interest but limited early-stage translation. SIGNIFICANCE: The fast expansion of stereolithographic-based 3D printing has been impressive and represents a great technological progress with significant disruptive potential. Dentistry has demonstrated an incredible willingness to adapt materials, methods and workflows to this promising digital technology. However, esthetic appearance, wear resistance, wet strength and dimensional accuracy are the main current clinical limitations restricting the progression to functional part production with 3D printing, which may explain the absence of clinical trials and reports on permanent/definitive dental restorative materials and structures.
Authors: Rodrigo Alessandretti; Marcia Borba; Paula Benetti; Pedro Henrique Corazza; Raissa Ribeiro; Alvaro Della Bona Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Nawal Alharbi; Saud Alharbi; Vincent M J I Cuijpers; Reham B Osman; Daniel Wismeijer Journal: J Prosthodont Res Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.642
Authors: Muhammad Harris; Hammad Mohsin; Johan Potgieter; Kashif Ishfaq; Richard Archer; Qun Chen; Karnika De Silva; Marie-Joo Le Guen; Russell Wilson; Khalid Mahmood Arif Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 4.967
Authors: Mihaela Pantea; Robert Cătălin Ciocoiu; Maria Greabu; Alexandra Ripszky Totan; Marina Imre; Ana Maria Cristina Țâncu; Ruxandra Sfeatcu; Tudor Claudiu Spînu; Radu Ilinca; Alexandru Eugen Petre Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Mihaela Pantea; Alexandra Ripszky Totan; Marina Imre; Alexandru Eugen Petre; Ana Maria Cristina Țâncu; Cristian Tudos; Alexandru Titus Farcașiu; Mihai Butucescu; Tudor Claudiu Spînu Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Tamas Hegedus; Patrik Kreuter; Aron Attila Kismarczi-Antalffy; Tamas Demeter; Dorottya Banyai; Adam Vegh; Zoltan Geczi; Peter Hermann; Michael Payer; Akos Zsembery; Ahmad Al-Hassiny; Khaled Mukaddam; Valentin Herber; Norbert Jakse; Daniel Vegh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 3.390