Clinical Performance of 3D-Printed Bioactive Resin Restorations Compared with Conventional Composite Restorations

Authors

  • Dr. Misbah Rahman Department of Dental Materials, Islamic International Dental College and Hospital.
  • Imran Khan Swati Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Pakistan.
  • Dr. Nageen Nasir Senior Lecturer, Department of Dental Materials, Islamabad Medical and Dental College.
  • Dr. Sughra Abid Lecturer, Department of Dental Materials, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar.
  • Dr. Muhammad Bilal Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Materials, University Medical & Dental College, Faisalabad.
  • Dr. Ayousha Iqbal Associate Professor and Head, Department of Dental Materials, Islamabad Medical and Dental College.

Keywords:

3D printing, bioactive resin, dental restorations, resin composite, clinical performance, surface quality

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed bioactive resin restorations are emerging as an alternative restorative approach with potential advantages in clinical performance and surface quality.

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of 3D-printed bioactive resin restorations with conventional composite restorations over a 6-month clinical follow-up.

Methodology: This prospective, parallel-group comparative study was conducted in the Department of Operative Dentistry, from Jan 2025 to December 2025. A total of 120 adult patients requiring suitable posterior restorations were enrolled through consecutive sampling, with 60 patients allocated to 3D-printed bioactive resin and 60 to conventional composite restorations. Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and during 6-month follow-up, including restoration survival, marginal integrity, postoperative sensitivity, anatomical form, surface quality, secondary caries, fracture, and restoration loss.

Results: Restoration survival was 91.67% in the 3D-printed group compared with 85.00% in the conventional group (p=0.251). Clinically acceptable marginal integrity was observed in 86.67% versus 76.67% (p=0.155), while absence of postoperative sensitivity was recorded in 88.33% versus 78.33% (p=0.130). Acceptable anatomical form was present in 91.67% versus 81.67% (p=0.104). Acceptable surface quality was significantly higher with 3D-printed resin (90.00% vs. 75.00%, p=0.043).

Conclusion: 3D-printed bioactive resin restorations demonstrated favorable short-term clinical performance comparable to conventional composite restorations, with significantly better surface quality.

References

Pitts NB, Zero DT, Marsh PD, Ekstrand K, Weintraub JA, Ramos-Gomez F, Tagami J, Twetman S, Tsakos G, Ismail A. Dental caries. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17030. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.30. PMID: 28540937.

Schwendicke F, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, Maltz M, Manton DJ, Ricketts D, et al. Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal. Adv Dent Res. 2016;28(2):58-67. doi:10.1177/0022034516639271. PMID: 27099362.

Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87-101. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003. PMID: 22192252.

Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005;21(10):962-970. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.018. PMID: 16085301.

Revilla-León M, Özcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):146-158. doi:10.1111/jopr.12801. PMID: 29682823.

Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry—state of the art. Oper Dent. 2020;45(1):30-40. doi:10.2341/18-229-L. PMID: 31251190.

Chen L, Shen H, Suh BI. Bioactive dental restorative materials: a review. Am J Dent. 2013;26(4):219-227. PMID: 24693633.

Braga RR. Calcium phosphates as ion-releasing fillers in restorative resin-based materials. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2018.08.288. PMID: 30139530.

Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K, Lu X, Shi H, Lee ES, Jiang HB. A review of 3D printing in dentistry: technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning. 2021;2021:9950131. doi:10.1155/2021/9950131. PMID: 33833986.

Kazi, A. K., Jatoi, A., & Hashmani, H. (2025). An Empirical Evaluation of Technology Acceptance Model in Mobile Devices in Healthcare Industry. Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 6(3), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.47205/jdss.2025(6-III)60

Jatoi, A., Bibi, M., Hashmani, H., & Ramish, M. S. (2025). Awareness of Patients’ Rights and the Respect and Dignity Experienced at Hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. International Journal of Trends and Innovations in Business & Social Sciences, 3(3), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17359794

Mandurino M, et al. Mechanical properties of 3D printed vs. subtractively manufactured composite resins for permanent restorations: a systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2025;18(5):985. doi:10.3390/ma18050985. PMID: 40077210.

Josic U, D'Alessandro C, Miletic V, Maravic T, Mazzitelli C, Jacimovic J, et al. Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2023;39(12):1085-1094. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.009. PMID: 37827872.

Flottes Y, Smail Y, Palomino-Durand C, Attal JP, Ceinos R, François P, Dursun E. Properties of 3D printed resins for definitive dental restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2026;135(4):e6-e27. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.040. PMID: 41419355.

Hobbi, P., Ordueri, T. M., Öztürk-Bozkurt, F., Toz-Akalın, T., Ateş, M., & Özcan, M. (2024). 3D-printed resin composite posterior fixed dental prosthesis: A prospective clinical trial up to 1 year. Frontiers in Dental Medicine, 5, 1390600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2024.1390600

Toz-Akalın, T., Öztürk-Bozkurt, F., Kuşdemir, M., Özsoy, A., Yüzbaşıoğlu, E., & Özcan, M. (2023). Clinical evaluation of low-shrinkage bioactive material giomer versus nanohybrid resin composite restorations: A two-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Operative Dentistry, 48(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.2341/21-155-C

Arbildo-Vega, H. I., et al. (2020). Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12691

Oliveira, A. G. de, Rocha, R. S., Spinola, M. da S., Batista, G. R., Bresciani, E., & Caneppele, T. M. F. (2023). Surface smoothness of resin composites after polishing—A systematic review and network meta-analysis of in vitro studies. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 131(2), e12921. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12921

Doumit, M., Beuer, F., Böse, M. W. H., Nicic, R., Hey, J., & Prause, E. (2024). The colour stability of 3D-printed, non-invasive restorations after 24 months in vivo—Esthetically pleasing or not? Journal of Dentistry, 150, 105391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105391

Effect of simulated tooth brushing on surface roughness, gloss, and color stability of milled and printed permanent restorative materials. (2025). Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-10

How to Cite

Dr. Misbah Rahman, Imran Khan Swati, Dr. Nageen Nasir, Dr. Sughra Abid, Dr. Muhammad Bilal, & Dr. Ayousha Iqbal. (2026). Clinical Performance of 3D-Printed Bioactive Resin Restorations Compared with Conventional Composite Restorations. International Journal of Pharmacy Research & Technology (IJPRT), 16(2), 7863–7873. Retrieved from https://www.ijprt.org/index.php/pub/article/view/3550

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 2 (2026)

Section

Research Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.