Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 21, 2026
Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025
Factors affecting the surface quality of 3D printed resin dental restorations in digitally assisted dentistry: A
Xueping Yan1, Yuchen Liu2, Cailing Han3
1Senior Engineer, State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Digital Dentistry Center, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
The surface quality of 3-dimensional (3D) printed resin dental restorations is critical for longevity and patient satisfaction, but surface quality is complex and influenced by the interplay of material composition, manufacturing parameters, and postprocessing techniques.
Purpose:
This systematic review aimed to analyze the scientific literature qualitatively and summarize the effects of key factors on the mechanical, biophysical, and esthetic properties of the surface quality of 3D printed resin dental restorations.
Material And Methods:
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted through February 2025 using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework to define the search strategy: 3D printed resin restorations; printing parameters, materials, and postprocessing; conventional methods or different settings; and surface quality assessed through its mechanical, biophysical, and esthetic properties. After screening, 82 studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0.
Results:
A total of 398 studies remained after duplicate removal using Zotero, of which 82 were included for analysis. The surface quality was influenced by 3 primary domains: material properties (such as resin matrix, filler type or content, photoinitiators) (n=29), printing parameters (such as layer thickness, build orientation, exposure energy) (n=61), and postprocessing methods (such as polishing, chemical coating, postpolymerization) (n=28). Material composition fundamentally determined baseline properties. Printing parameters significantly affected surface roughness and microstructure, while postprocessing was crucial for enhancing final surface characteristics. Analysis revealed distinct patterns: filler systems and postpolymerization were paramount for mechanical properties; printing orientation and finishing dominated biophysical properties; and postprocessing and environmental resistance were decisive for esthetic performance.
Conclusions:
The surface quality of 3D printed resin restorations is not determined by a single factor but by the synergistic effect of material composition, process parameters, and postprocessing techniques. Effective clinical optimization requires a tailored approach to each category of surface property, acknowledging their different governing factors. Optimizing these factors in concert is essential for achieving restorations with superior mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and durable esthetics.
