Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed versus Conventional (Acrylic and Bis-Acrylic) and CAD/CAM-Milled Resins for Provisional Fixed Prosthetic Restorations: A Systematic Review
Background: 3D-printed resins are increasingly used for temporary restorations in fixed prosthodontics, but their biocompatibility compared to conventional and CAD/CAM-milled resins remains insufficiently established. Objectives: To synthesize data on the biocompatibility of 3D-printed temporary resins compared to conventional and CAD/CAM-milled resins, and to identify post-processing parameters influencing this profile. Sources and Methods: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261383298). The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenAlex for the period 2015-2026. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting at least one quantitative biological endpoint (cell viability, monomer elution, degree of conversion) and including a conventional or CAD/CAM comparator were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUIN (in vitro studies) and RoB 2.0 (RCTs) by two independent reviewers. Results: Thirteen studies included (12 in vitro, 1 RCT); moderate risk of bias for 11 in vitro studies, low risk for the RCT and 1 in vitro study. Cytotoxicity is product-specific; post-polymerization < 15 min induces a reduction in cellular metabolism, whereas 15 - 20 min results in a profile comparable to that of milled resins. Monomer elution is higher for printed resins (53 - 87 μmol/L) than for milled blocks (7.6 μmol/L), but remains below cytotoxic thresholds. Biofilm is more abundant but less pathogenic on 3D-printed resins. The ECR shows a shorter operating time (5 vs. 19 min) but a higher fracture rate (19% vs. 0%). Conclusion: 3D-printed resins are an acceptable alternative for single-tooth temporary restorations, provided post-curing lasts ≥ 15 - 20 min. The use of 3D-printed resins for bridges or restorations exceeding 6 months is currently not supported by clinical evidence. Further long-term studies are needed before these indications can be recommended. Clinical trials with follow-up of ≥1 year are needed.
Cite this paper
Baldé, S. , M’, M. E. , Daghri, Solié, V. and Amine, M. (2026). Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed versus Conventional (Acrylic and Bis-Acrylic) and CAD/CAM-Milled Resins for Provisional Fixed Prosthetic Restorations: A Systematic Review. Open Access Library Journal, 13, e15621. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1115621.
Majeed, H.F., Hamad, T.I. and Bairam, L.R. (2024) Enhancing 3D-Printed Denture Base Resins: A Review of Material Innovations. <i>Science Progress</i>, 107, 1-20. <br>https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504241263484
Burns, D.R., Beck, D.A. and Nelson, S.K. (2003) A Review of Selected Dental Literature on Contemporary Provisional Fixed Prosthodontic Treatment: Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. <i>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</i>, 90, 474-497. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00259-2
Campaner, M., <i>et al</i>. (2020) Cytotoxicity and Inflammatory Response of Different Types of Provisional Restorative Materials. <i>Archives of Oral Biology</i>, 111, Article ID: 104643. <br>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31918345/
Hampe, T., Wiessner, A., Frauendorf, H., Alhussein, M., Karlovsky, P., Bürgers, R., <i>et al</i>. (2021) A Comparative <i>in Vitro</i> Study on Monomer Release from Bisphenol A-Free and Conventional Temporary Crown and Bridge Materials. <i>European Jou</i><i>rnal of Oral Sciences</i>, 129, e12826. <br>https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12826
Bürgers, R., Schubert, A., Müller, J., Krohn, S., Rödiger, M., Leha, A., <i>et a</i><i>l</i>. (2022) Cytotoxicity of 3D-Printed, Milled, and Conventional Oral Splint Resins to L929 Cells and Human Gingival Fibroblasts. <i>Clinical and Experimental Dental Research</i>, 8, 650-657. <br>https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.592
Alshamrani, S.A., Alobaid, B.F. and Alharkan, H.M. (2024) Comparative Analysis of Color Stability among 3D-Printed Resin-Based, CAD/CAM, and Conventional Interim Fixed Prosthodontic Materials. <i>Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences</i>, 16, S4618-S4622. <br>https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1016_24
Rus, F., Neculau, C., Imre, M., Duica, F., Popa, A., Moisa, R.M., <i>et al</i>. (2024) Polymeric Materials Used in 3DP in Dentistry—Biocompatibility Testing Challenges. <i>Polymers</i>, 16, Article 3550. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16243550
Lourinho, C., Salgado, H., Correia, A. and Fonseca, P. (2022) Mechanical Properties of Polymethyl Methacrylate as Denture Base Material: Heat-Polymerized vs. 3D-Printed-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of <i>in Vitro</i> Studies. <i>Biomedicines</i>, 10, Article 2565. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10102565
Kim, D., Shim, J., Lee, D., Shin, S., Nam, N., Park, K., <i>et al</i>. (2020) Effects of Post-Curing Time on the Mechanical and Color Properties of Three-Dimensional Printed Crown and Bridge Materials. <i>Polymers</i>, 12, Article 2762. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112762
Jin, G., Gu, H., Jang, M., Bayarsaikhan, E., Lim, J., Shim, J., <i>et al</i>. (2022) Influence of Postwashing Process on the Elution of Residual Monomers, Degree of Conversion, and Mechanical Properties of a 3D Printed Crown and Bridge Materials. <i>Dental Materials</i>, 38, 1812-1825. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.017
Britto, V.T., Cantelli, V., Collares, F.M., Bertol, C.D. and Della Bona, Á. (2022) Biomechanical Properties of a 3D Printing Polymer for Provisional Restorations and Artificial Teeth. <i>Dental Materials</i>, 38, 1956-1962. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.004
Wuersching, S.N., Hickel, R., Edelhoff, D. and Kollmuss, M. (2022) Initial Biocompatibility of Novel Resins for 3D Printed Fixed Dental Prostheses. <i>Dental Materials</i>, 38, 1587-1597. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.08.001
Alamo, L., Cassiano, F.B., Bordini, E.A.F., Stuani, V.T., Pacheco, L.E., Gallinari, M.D.O., <i>et al</i>. (2022) An Organotypic Model of Oral Mucosa Cells for the Biological Assessment of 3D Printed Resins for Interim Restorations. <i>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentist</i><i>ry</i>, 132, 251-259. <br>https://www.thejpd.org/article/S0022-3913(22)00273-6/abstract
Berghaus, E., Roling, X., Warkentin, M. and Petersen, S. (2022) Effect of Enzymatic Degradation and Hydrolysis on 3D-Printed Resin-Based Composite Material for Temporary Dental Crowns and Bridges. <i>Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering</i>, 8, 281-284. <br>https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2022-1072
Berghaus, E., Klocke, T., Maletz, R. and Petersen, S. (2023) Degree of Conversion and Residual Monomer Elution of 3D-Printed, Milled and Self-Cured Resin-Based Composite Materials for Temporary Dental Crowns and Bridges. <i>Journal of Materials Science</i>:<i> Materials in Medicine</i>, 34, Article No. 23. <br>https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-023-06729-z
Mudhaffer, S., Silikas, N. and Satterthwaite, J. (2025) Effect of Print Orientation on Sorption, Solubility, and Monomer Elution of 3D Printed Resin Restorative Materials. <i>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</i>, 134, 461.e1-461.e12. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.04.040
Wuersching, S.N., Manghofer, D., Stawarczyk, B., Gueth, J. and Kollmuss, M. (2026) Surface Properties of Dental Materials Influence the <i>in Vitro</i> Multi-Species Biofilm Formation. <i>Polymers</i>, 18, Article 288. <br>https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020288
de Souza, F.A., Blois, M.C., Collares, K. and dos Santos, M.B.F. (2024) 3D-Printed and Conventional Provisional Single Crown Fabrication on Anterior Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial. <i>Dental Materials</i>, 40, 340-347. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2023.12.004
Folwaczny, M., Ahantab, R., Kessler, A., Ern, C. and Frasheri, I. (2023) Cytotoxicity of 3D Printed Resin Materials for Temporary Restorations on Human Periodontal Ligament (PDL-hTERT) Cells. <i>Dental Materials</i>, 39, 529-537. <br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2023.04.003
