Clinical Readiness of Additively Manufactured Dental Ceramics for Crowns, Veneers, and Partial-Coverage Restorations: A Scoping Review and Evidence Map

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This scoping review mapped the clinical readiness of directly additively manufactured (AM) dental ceramics for single-unit definitive restorations (crowns, veneers, and partial-coverage restorations) using a predefined review-specific five-tier readiness framework (R1–R5) designed to organize evidence maturity from restoration-relevant foundational studies to comparative clinical evidence. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO (Dentistry and Oral Sciences Sources), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to February 2026, with citation tracking. Thirty-five sources were included: 31 in vitro studies and 4 clinical studies. Evidence clustered in preclinical tiers, with most studies classified as restoration-level in vitro investigations (R2, 22/35) or foundational specimen-level studies explicitly linked to restorative performance (R1, 9/35); only one feasibility study reached R3 (1/35), three studies provided comparative clinical evidence (R4, 3/35), and no R5-level evidence was identified. The additively manufactured definitive restorations evaluated were zirconia-based. Most restoration-level studies addressed zirconia crowns (18/35), with fewer studies focusing on veneers/laminates (5/35) and occlusal veneers/tabletops (2/35). Across AM routes (most commonly vat photopolymerization ceramic workflows and nanoparticle jetting) outcomes focused on fit/adaptation, manufacturing accuracy, mechanical performance, and aging simulations; clinical studies reported short- to mid-term performance using standardized evaluation criteria. Overall, the evidence suggests technical feasibility and increasing restoration-level evaluation under controlled conditions, but clinical applicability remains preliminary because higher-readiness clinical evidence is still limited. Future work should prioritize standardized reporting, clinically relevant aging/fatigue paradigms, and longer-term comparative clinical studies.

This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit: