## 5 Discussion  
In the following section, we provide an analytical discussion of the results. Namely, Figures 4-7 were designed to synthesize and visualize the potential relationships among additive manufacturing materials, technologies, and dental applications in correspondence to the proposed RQs. These visual and analytical figures aim to support cross-disciplinary insights, particularly from the perspective of engineering and material sciences. Importantly, the grouping of dental applications (e.g., restorations, implants, and graft-related materials) was created based on shared AM material and processing characteristics, rather than specific clinical indications. Thus, while classifications facilitate patterns in technological adoption, we acknowledge their limitations in terms of clinical granularity. For instance, dental prostheses and bone graft scaffolds may share a standard material or printing method (e.g., titanium LPBF), yet serve different therapeutic functions. Hence, the figures should be interpreted as a technology-focused synthesis, rather than a clinical decision-making guide. The relationship map (Figure 4) shows a pronounced association among biomaterials and power bed fusion technologies, particularly LPBF and SLS, in dental restoration and prosthetic applications. This association is likely due to the superior mechanical performance and biocompatibility that these combinations offer, particularly when precision and load-bearing characteristics are required. This stresses the ability of powder-based methods to produce structurally dense and geometrically complex implants with minimal porosity. Conversely, polymers showed weaker associations across all application domains, which may reflect limitations in their mechanical durability and long-term performance under oral conditions. While polymer-based FDM and DIW offer advantages in terms of low costs and rapid prototyping, they appear less suited for permanent restorative applications, which likely explains their limited presence in the reviewed articles. The underrepresentation of cytotoxicity and microbiological evaluations (Figure 5) raises serious concerns. Despite their criticality for clinical translation, these parameters are often omitted, possibly due to the high cost and regulatory complexity of in vitro or in vivo validation studies. This gap underscores a potential disconnect between material engineering and biomedical requirements--a recurring challenge in translational research. Table 2 shows the most commonly used 3D printing technologies in the selected articles from different aspects, such as the characteristics of additive technologies, used materials, applications, and advantages and disadvantages. Summarizing the results, the most prominent advantages of additive technologies in dentistry are as follows: (i) a wide range of materials, (ii) high precision and accuracy of manufacturing, (iii) good for complex geometries, (iv) no need for support structures, and (v) low material waste; whereas the most prominent disadvantages are as follows: (i) lower resolution and surface finish, (ii) material limitations, (iii) post-processing is required, (iv) certain materials are toxic, (v) high costs, and (vi) support structures are required. It is important to note that due to the restricted number of studies obtained through the systematic review, the sample size limits the generalizability of conclusions, and further studies are needed to support inferential statistics, which is why a careful examination and discussion of the findings is performed. Based on RQ1 (What are the most common applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry? ), the literature review and data analysis concluded that additive manufacturing in dentistry is most often used in applications such as dental restoration, dental prosthetics, dental implants, and dental crowns. Regarding RQ2 (Which technologies and materials are most prevalent in dental applications?