Abstract This review aimed to map the available scientific evidence regarding the physical–mechanical properties and clinical performance of 3D‐printed resins used for indirect restorations and identify research gaps. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with methodological details preregistered in the Open Science Framework. A literature search was conducted in May 2025 across PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, without restrictions on publication date or language. Studies evaluating the physico‐mechanical properties (color stability, flexural strength, surface roughness, and hardness) and clinical performance (esthetic, functional, or biological properties) of 3D‐printed resins for full or partial coverage restorations, whether permanent or provisional, were included. A total of 36 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 35 in vitro and 1 clinical trial. The most frequently analyzed resin for temporary restorations was C&B MFH (NextDent) ( n = 10), while for definitive restorations, VSC+ (Bego) ( n = 5) was the most frequently used. Nonetheless, further research is required to evaluate their clinical performance in both temporary and definitive restorations. The available evidence indicates that a wide variety of 3D‐printed resins are available for clinical use, mainly as provisional restorative materials. There is still no sufficient clinical evidence to support the use of 3D‐printed resins for indirect definitive restorations.
Ribeiro et al. (2025) studied this question.