3D-printed resin materials for indirect restorations—a scoping review and evidence gap map

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.