The emergence of digital dentistry has led to the introduction of various three-dimensional (3D) printing materials in the market, specifically for provisional fixed restoration. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of the published literature on the Mechanical Properties of 3D- Printed Provisional Resin Materials for crown and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). The electronic database on PubMed/Medline was searched for relevant studies. The search retrieved articles that were published from January 2011 to March 2023. The established focus question was: “Do provisional 3D-printed materials have better mechanical properties than conventional or milled provisional materials?”. The systematically extracted data included the researcher’s name(s), publication year, evaluation method, number of samples, types of materials, and study outcome. A total of 19 studies were included in this systematic review. These studies examined different aspects of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional materials. Flexural Strength and Microhardness were the frequently used mechanical testing. Furthermore, 3D-printed provisional restorations showed higher hardness, smoother surfaces, less wear volume loss, and higher wear resistance compared to either milled or conventional, or both. 3D-printed provisional resin materials appear to be a promising option for fabricating provisional crowns and FDPs.

PurposeTo compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all‐on‐four treatment in the maxillary arch.Materials and methodsAn edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all‐on‐four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans (n = 10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions (n = 10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory‐scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two‐way ANOVA and paired‐samples t‐test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount.ResultsNo significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F(1, 76) = 2.705, p = 0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F(1, 76) = .041, p = 0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p = 0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p = 0.08.ConclusionDigital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.

This article summarizes the clinical steps involved in maxillary and mandibular complete‐arch implant rehabilitation using a complete digital workflow. The maxillary arch was recorded using the double digital scan technique, and the mandibular arch using the triple digital scan technique. The digital protocol used in this case report allowed the recording of implant positions via scan bodies, soft tissues, and, most importantly, the interocclusal relationship in the same visit. A new technique for mandibular digital scan was described that uses soft tissue landmarks by creating windows in the patient's provisional prostheses to superimpose the three digital scans and consequently fabricate and verify the maxillary and mandibular prototype prostheses and definitive complete‐arch zirconia prostheses.