Mechanical performance of 3-dimensionally printed resins compared with conventional and milled resins for the manufacture of occlusal devices: A systematic review.

Statement of problem: Digital methods for manufacturing occlusal devices provide advantages over conventional techniques, but information about the mechanical properties of 3-dimensionally (3D) printed resins is scarce.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature to determine whether 3D-printed resins for occlusal devices present satisfactory mechanical performance when compared with milled and conventional heat polymerized and autopolymerized resins.

Material and methods: This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and was registered in the Open Science Framework. The search strategy was applied without restriction of time and language to Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases, and to the nonpeer-reviewed literature in ProQuest and Google Scholar. The selection process was conducted independently in 2 stages by 2 reviewers according to the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was analyzed by using a checklist of important parameters to be considered. The systematic review considered the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, studies (PICOS) format, where population was resins for 3D printing of occlusal devices, intervention was inherent characteristics of the resin, comparison was conventional heat polymerized, autopolymerized, and milled resins, outcome was mechanical performance, and studies were in vitro experimental studies.

Results: A total of 1430 articles were found with the search strategy. After removing 182 duplicates found in Rayyan, the title and abstract of 1248 articles were evaluated, of which 37 articles were screened from the databases, 23 were selected for full reading, and 6 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review; 1 had a low risk of bias and 5 had a moderate risk. An additional search of the reference list of included articles did not result in the inclusion of any articles. A quantitative meta-analysis could not be performed because of the heterogeneity of the included studies regarding the type of resin used and the method for evaluating mechanical performance.

Conclusions: Resins for 3D printing had satisfactory mechanical performance for interocclusal devices when compared with conventional heat polymerized and autopolymerized resins, except for hardness. Milled resins were better than 3D-printed resins in hardness, wear resistance, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fracture resistance when printing angle and thickness were not considered. Further development is needed in terms of printing techniques and chemical composition, as they are important for optimal mechanical properties and clinical performance.