Advantages of polymer post-and-core restorations: a new perspective on tooth rehabilitation using 3D technologies: a review
- Authors: Minasyan A.A.1, Apresyan S.V.2, Stepanov A.G.2
-
Affiliations:
- Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
- Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
- Issue: Vol 29, No 5 (2025)
- Pages: 382-387
- Section: Reviews
- URL: https://bakhtiniada.ru/1728-2802/article/view/349777
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/dent690103
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GLZKAQ
- ID: 349777
Cite item
Abstract
This review synthesizes current evidence on the use of 3D-printed polymer post-and-core restorations for rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth. Based on a search of publications from 2021 to 2025 in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CrossRef, DOAJ, Google Scholar, and eLIBRARY.RU, more than 50 records were screened. Fourteen articles were selected according to relevance, full-text availability, and clinical focus, including clinical observations, in vitro experiments, and systematic reviews.
Studies have shown that additively manufactured polymer restorations are bio inert, corrosion resistant, and exhibit an elastic modulus comparable to dentin, thereby reducing the risk of root fractures commonly observed in metal and zirconia systems. High-precision digital modeling provides an accurate fit and reduces the extent of tooth preparation, preserving up to 25% of hard dental tissues. Optimized post-processing (ultraviolet curing in a nitrogen environment and polishing) decreases surface roughness and improves bonding. These advantages, combined with a 40%–60% reduction in laboratory time and approximately one-third lower treatment cost, support the economic feasibility of the approach. Clinical case series with five-year follow-up demonstrate restoration stability without signs of failure or decompensation and with maintained function. Limitations include the need for expensive equipment, high energy consumption, and a shortage of clinical trial data.
The findings suggest that polymer 3D-printed post-and-core restorations are a promising alternative to conventional systems; however, their reliability requires confirmation in expanded clinical studies with follow-up beyond five years.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Anait A. Minasyan
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Author for correspondence.
Email: anahit.minasyan99@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-2949-2962
Russian Federation, Moscow
Samvel V. Apresyan
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
Email: dr.apresyan@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3281-707X
SPIN-code: 6317-9002
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medidcine), Professor
Russian Federation, MoscowAlexander G. Stepanov
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
Email: stepanovmd@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6543-0998
SPIN-code: 5848-6077
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medidcine), Professor
Russian Federation, MoscowReferences
- Dimitrova M, Vlahova A, Kazakova R. Assessment of CAD/CAM fabrication technologies for post and core restorations—a narrative review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(5):748. doi: 10.3390/medicina60050748 EDN: CDGTQJ
- Kasem AT, Shams M, Tribst JPM. The use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an alternative post and core material: five-year follow-up report. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(12):237. doi: 10.3390/dj10120237
- Paqué PN, Özcan M. A review on biocompatibility of dental restorative and reconstruction materials. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2024;11:68–77. doi: 10.1007/s40496-023-00358-9 EDN: JFXXHG
- Cai H, Xu X, Lu X, et al. Dental materials applied to 3D and 4D printing technologies: a review. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15(10):2405. doi: 10.3390/polym15102405 EDN: JWCTNB
- Ali F, Kalva SN, Koc M. Advancements in 3D printing techniques for biomedical applications: a comprehensive review of materials consideration, post processing, applications, and challenges. Discov Mater. 2024;(4):53. doi: 10.1007/s43939-024-00115-4 EDN: QCLAIH
- Guttridge C, Shannon A, O’Sullivan A, et al. Biocompatible 3D printing resins for medical applications: a review of marketed intended use, biocompatibility certification, and post-processing guidance. Annals of 3D Printed Medicine. 2022;5. doi: 10.1016/j.stlm.2021.100044
- Daher R, Ardu S, di Bella E, et al. Efficiency of 3D printed composite resin restorations compared with subtractive materials: evaluation of fatigue behavior, cost, and time of production. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(5):943–950. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.001 EDN: KYKCLG
- Çelik Öge S, Küden C, Ekren O. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed post and core systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2024;37(7):127–131. doi: 10.11607/ijp.8860
- Khorsandi D, Fahimipour A, Abasian P, et al. 3D and 4D printing in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery: Printing techniques, materials, and applications. Acta Biomater. 2021;122:26–49. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.044 EDN: ZMOBUU
- Hassanpour M, Narongdej P, Alterman N, et al. Effects of post-processing parameters on 3d-printed dental appliances: a review. Polymers (Basel). 2024;16(19):2795. doi: 10.3390/polym16192795 EDN: XIGNMW
- Vichi A, Balestra D, Louca C. Effect of different finishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of a 3D-printed material for permanent dental use. Appl Sci. 2024;14(16):7289. doi: 10.3390/app14167289 EDN: UDQHPF
- Abdelmohsen N, Wahsh M, Zohdy M, et al. Mode of failure and finite element analysis of custom-made PEEK post-core (milled and pressed). Odontology. 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10266-025-01084-7 EDN: VKPYSE
- Popescu M, Perieanu VS, Burlibașa M, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of resin 3D printing protocols in dental prosthodontics: a systematic review. Prosthesis. 2025;7(4):78. doi: 10.3390/prosthesis7040078
- Jambhule Sh, Palandurkar M, Shewale A. 3D printing in dentistry. Int J Adv Res. 2022;10(03):742–750. doi: 10.21474/IJAR01/14443
Supplementary files


