Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Aug 9;15(1):29207.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-14288-2.

Systematic review and meta analysis of mechanical properties of 3D printed denture bases compared to milled and conventional materials

Amr Azab  1 , Walid Awad Abdelhady  2 , Enas Elwakeel  3 , Mohamed Ashraf  4 , Rim Wally  5   6 , Amir Soliman  7 , Maged Ahmed Mohamed  4   6 , Dina Abozaid  8
Affiliations

Systematic review and meta analysis of mechanical properties of 3D printed denture bases compared to milled and conventional materials

Amr Azab et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Denture base fabrication has advanced with the introduction of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) techniques, such as subtractive milling and additive 3D printing. However, concerns persist regarding the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture bases. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the flexural strength (FS), surface hardness, fracture toughness, and impact strength of 3D-printed denture bases with those produced by milling and conventional methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central was conducted up to March 2025 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In vitro studies comparing 3D-printed denture bases with milled or conventional heat-polymerized bases in terms of mechanical properties were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for quasi-experimental studies was used. Data was extracted, and quantitative synthesis was performed where possible. Thirty-eight studies were included, comprising 562 specimens for FS and 231 for surface hardness. Meta-analysis revealed that milled denture bases demonstrated the highest flexural strength (MD = -1.11, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.93], p < 0.001) and surface hardness (MD = -26.49, 95% CI [-29.89, -23.10], p < 0.001) compared to 3D-printed bases. Conventional bases outperformed 3D-printed ones in most mechanical properties. Milled denture bases exhibited the highest FS (120–146 MPa), followed by conventional PMMA (95–119 MPa), while 3D-printed bases showed wider variability (28–128 MPa). Surface hardness (VHN), fracture toughness (MPa·m¹/²), and impact strength (kJ/m²) were also superior in milled bases. Statistical heterogeneity was present due to differences in materials, printing orientation, and post-curing protocols. Subgroup analysis based on printing orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°) partially explained this variability, showing higher FS in horizontally printed specimens. Although 3D-printed denture bases offer customization and production efficiency, their mechanical properties remain inferior to milled alternatives. Optimization of resin formulations, printing parameters, and post-processing protocols is essential to enhance their clinical performance. The main limitations were high heterogeneity among included studies, differences in material formulations, variability in testing standards, and the in vitro nature of most included studies. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250639092). There were no deviations from the registered protocol.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-025-14288-2.

Keywords: 3D printing; CAD-CAM milling; Denture base materials; Flextural Strength; Surface hardness; Systematic review; meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow chart.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pooled results for flexural strength (3d printed vs. conventional denture base).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pooled results for flexural strength (3d printed vs. milled denture base).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pooled results for hardness (3d printed vs. conventional denture base).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Pooled results for hardness (3d printed vs. milled denture base).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Azab, A., Alam-Eldein, A. & Aboutaleb, F. Qualitative and radiographic assessment of PEEK bar versus titanium bar fabricated by CAD-CAM in mandibular hybrid prosthesis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Ain Shams Dent. J.35, 334–343. 10.21608/asdj.2024.291266.1289 (2024).
    1. Fouda, S. M. et al. Flexural properties and hardness of CAD-CAM denture base materials. J. Prosthodont.32, 318–324 (2023). - PubMed
    1. Prpić, V., Schauperl, Z., Ćatić, A., Dulčić, N. & Čimić, S. Comparison of mechanical properties of 3D-printed, CAD/CAM, and conventional denture base materials. J. Prosthodont.29, 524–528 (2020). - PubMed
    1. Al-Dwairi, Z. N., Haj Ebrahim, A., Baba, N. Z. & A. A. & A comparison of the surface and mechanical properties of 3D printable denture‐base resin material and conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J. Prosthodont.32, 40–48 (2023). - PubMed
    1. Htat, H. L., Prawatvatchara, W., Techapiroontong, S., Lee, J. H. & Limpuangthip, N. Effect of mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the repairing of milled and 3D-printed denture bases. Sci. Rep.14, 23413 (2024). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources