Article ID: JPR_D_24_00324
Purpose: This meta-analysis answers the research question, how does the accuracy of additive manufacturing (AM) compare to that of subtractive manufacturing (SM) for fabricating zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?
Study selection: Relevant studies were systematically searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science and screened following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines; the inclusion criteria include studies that evaluate the accuracy of FDPs fabricated using AM and SM. Studies were excluded if they did not compare AM and SM, did not use zirconia, or did not assess accuracy. Study quality was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies, and publication bias was assessed using Egger’s and Begg’s tests.
Results: Sixteen in vitro studies were included. The meta-analysis revealed that FDPs fabricated via AM demonstrated significantly lower trueness compared to that of SM in the intaglio surface (P < 0.01; SMD: 1.37; 95% CI: [0.80, 1.95]; I2 = 90%, P < 0.01), marginal area (P < 0.01; SMD: 1.83; 95% CI: [1.17, 2.49]; I2 = 91%, P < 0.01), and external surface (P < 0.01; SMD: 2.15; 95% CI: [1.19, 3.12]; I2 = 91%, P < 0.01). AM demonstrated significantly higher precision compared to that of SM (P < 0.01; SMD: −1.89; 95% CI: [−2.77, −1.01]; I2 = 77%, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: AM technologies exhibit lower trueness compared to that of SM and offer superior precision. Material jetting achieves trueness comparable to that of SM. Both AM and SM satisfy clinical accuracy requirements.
