Whether additive manufactured (AM) and subtractive manufactured (SM) resin-based restorations differ in optical properties after aging and staining is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether AM and SM resin-based dental restoration materials differ in color change (ΔE), translucency (TP), and translucency change (ΔTP). A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up to January 2025. Eligible studies were English-language, peer-reviewed in vitro investigations comparing AM and SM resin-based fixed dental restorations for ΔE, TP, or ΔTP. Nonresin and noncomparative studies were excluded. Outcomes were synthesized as weighted mean differences (WMDs) using random-effects meta-analysis. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and I² statistics and explored through subgroup and random-effects meta-regression analyses (α=.05). Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Begg and Egger tests, and nonparametric trim-and-fill analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN). Of 8169 records screened, 37 studies were included. AM resin-based materials showed greater ΔE compared with SM materials (WMD=1.40; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.46; P 99%). Evidence regarding TP differences between AM and SM materials was inconclusive because of high heterogeneity (I²>99%). ΔTP was greater in AM materials (WMD=–0.29; 95% CI: –0.43 to –0.15; P <.001), with high heterogeneity (I²≈98%). AM resin-based materials tended to show greater ΔE and ΔTP after aging compared with SM materials, whereas evidence for TP differences was inconclusive.
Mosaddad et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: