Evaluating micro-CT as a tool for advanced research in prosthetic dentistry: systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinicians must evaluate prosthetic fit, material behavior, and in vivo performance to ensure clinical success; therefore, this review examines the role of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) in prosthetic dentistry research. The research question framed as "Does micro-CT imaging improve the precision and detail in prosthetic dentistry research as opposed to standard evaluation methods?" (PROSPERO registration ID CRD420251047674). Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies published between January 2014 and December 2024. Eligible studies included in vitro and ex vivo investigations using micro-CT for quantitative assessment of prosthetic restorations. Methodological quality was appraised with CRIS and risk of bias was evaluated using QUIN tool. Data were pooled using RevMan software, with heterogeneity assessed via I² statistics. From 582 initial records, PubMed (264), Scopus (161), and Web of Science (157)- this systematic review scrutinized 10 eligible studies out of which 5 studies were included in meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. Micro-CT consistently demonstrated superior precision in assessing marginal gaps, internal adaptation, and material porosity compared with conventional methods. The pooled mean marginal gap was 32.21 µm (95% CI: 23.46-40.96 µm), within clinically acceptable thresholds. Most studies achieved high CRIS scores (> 9/11), indicating high transparency and completeness of reporting, while risk of bias assessment using the QUIN tool demonstrated overall moderate methodological quality. However, heterogeneity in voxel size, protocols, and reporting limited comparability. Micro-CT provides reliable, high-resolution evaluation of prosthetic restorations, validating its role as a reference tool in dental research. While in vitro findings support its superiority over conventional techniques, broader clinical translation requires methodological standardisation, cost reduction, and improved reporting practices.