TL;DR: A randomized trial from Yonsei University College of Dentistry, published in the Journal of Dentistry in October 2026, compared definitive 3D-printed resin crowns with monolithic zirconia crowns on posterior teeth for one year. Fit, gum health and patient satisfaction were similar, but the resin crowns wore far more and fractured more often (six resin crowns vs two zirconia crowns), mostly on the most-posterior restored tooth. The authors advise caution before using printed resin as a definitive posterior crown.
Can a printed resin crown stand in for zirconia as a definitive posterior restoration? As of October 2026, a new randomized clinical comparison answers part of that question for practices considering an in-office printing workflow. It also shows where the open questions still sit.
What the Study Tested
The trial, by Heedo Shin, Kyung Chul Oh and Jee-Hwan Kim of the Department of Prosthodontics at Yonsei University College of Dentistry in Seoul, appears in the Journal of Dentistry (first published online 7 October 2026). According to the paper's abstract, 56 adults who needed a tooth-supported single crown on a posterior tooth were randomized 1:1 to receive either a definitive 3D-printed resin crown or a monolithic zirconia crown.
The team measured:
- Marginal and internal fit before cementation, using the replica technique
- Occlusal wear, by comparing intraoral scans taken at 1 week and at 1 year
- Crown fractures, analysed as fracture-free survival
- Periodontal outcomes and patient satisfaction
The abstract does not name the commercial printing resin used, so the results should not be assumed to apply to every printed resin on the market.
Key Findings: Fit Held Up, Wear and Fractures Did Not
Fit
Marginal and axial gaps did not differ significantly between the two groups. The axio-occlusal and occlusal gaps were actually smaller for the printed resin crowns. The authors describe the printed crowns' marginal adaptation as acceptable.
Fractures
Six resin crowns and two zirconia crowns fractured during the first year. One-year fracture-free survival was 78.6% for resin and 92.9% for zirconia. That difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.12). In a trial of 56 patients, that is not the same as showing the two materials perform equally. The authors call the resin group's fracture incidence "numerically higher."
The more telling detail: seven of the eight fractures occurred on the most-posterior restored tooth, and being the most-posterior tooth was significantly associated with fracture (P=0.002).
Wear
Here the gap was large and significant. Mean wear depth was 92.33 µm for the resin crowns versus 14.48 µm for zirconia, and mean wear volume was 4.31 mm³ versus 0.47 mm³.
Gums and Patients
Periodontal outcomes and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between groups at one year.
What the Authors Conclude
The authors' reading is measured. Printed resin crowns showed acceptable fit, with no significant differences from zirconia in short-term periodontal outcomes or patient satisfaction. But they write that the greater occlusal wear and numerically higher fracture incidence "may raise concerns regarding mechanical durability" for definitive posterior use, and that longer-term studies are needed before broader clinical application. Their clinical-significance statement says the findings "warrant caution" and call for continued monitoring of wear and restoration integrity.
What This Means for Practices in Toronto and Across Ontario
For a practice weighing an in-house printing workflow, the study reads less like a verdict and more like a set of case-selection guardrails.
- Tooth position matters. With seven of eight fractures on the most-posterior restored tooth, that position is where printed resin was most likely to fail in this trial.
- Wear is a monitoring task, not a one-time check. If your practice places printed definitive crowns, building wear and integrity checks into recall visits follows directly from the authors' recommendation.
- One year is short. The authors themselves state that longer-term studies are required before broader clinical application.
- Informed consent should reflect the evidence. When a patient is choosing between a printed resin crown and zirconia, the findings of this trial (comparable fit and satisfaction, significantly more wear, and a numerically higher fracture count) are worth explaining in plain language and charting.
Pro Tip: Before adopting any printing resin for definitive crowns, read its instructions for use to confirm the manufacturer lists definitive single crowns, and the tooth positions, among its indications. Then confirm its Health Canada medical device licence status in the Medical Devices Active Licence Listing (MDALL).
Pro Tip: If you already place printed definitive crowns, flag them in your practice management software so hygienists can note wear facets and chipping at each recall. A simple chart flag makes the authors' "continued monitoring" advice practical.
The Bigger Picture
For practices across the GTA, from Mississauga to Markham, trials like this one help separate "can be printed" from "should be the definitive restoration here." For now, this randomized evidence supports printed resin's fit and short-term acceptability, while pointing to wear and posterior fracture risk as the questions longer trials need to settle.
EBIKO Dental will continue monitoring research on digital and printed restorative materials and will report longer-term results as they are published. Browse clinical and practice resources at EBIKO Dental.
Sources
- Shin H, Oh KC, Kim JH. Evaluation of full-veneer crowns fabricated with 3D printing resin material for definitive prostheses: A 1-year randomized controlled prospective study. Journal of Dentistry, 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2026.107097 · Europe PMC record
- Health Canada, Medical Devices Active Licence Listing (MDALL)
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Are 3D-printed resin crowns as durable as zirconia crowns?
Not in this trial. In a one-year randomized study of posterior single crowns published in the Journal of Dentistry in 2026, printed resin crowns showed significantly more occlusal wear than monolithic zirconia and a numerically higher fracture count (six resin vs two zirconia crowns), although the survival difference was not statistically significant.
Q: Do printed resin crowns fit as well as zirconia crowns?
In this study, yes. Marginal and axial gaps did not differ significantly, and the occlusal and axio-occlusal gaps were smaller for the printed resin crowns, which the authors describe as acceptable marginal adaptation.
Q: Which teeth are most at risk when using printed resin definitive crowns?
The most-posterior restored tooth. Seven of the eight fractures in the trial occurred on the most-posterior restored tooth, and that position was significantly associated with fracture.