3D-Printed versus Conventionally Fabricated Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Narrative Review of Architecture, Mechanical Properties, and Regenerative Outcomes

Michael Josef Kridanto Kamadjaja^1*, Mefina Kuntjoro¹, Jesslyn Azalia²

Abstract

Background: Alveolar ridge deficiency frequently requires bone augmentation before dental implant placement, and scaffold-based grafts are increasingly used as alternatives to autogenous bone. Conventional fabrication methods such as salt leaching, gas foaming, and freeze-drying yield porous scaffolds with limited control over internal architecture, whereas three-dimensional (3D) printing allows pore geometry and external shape to be predefined. Purpose: This narrative review compares 3D-printed and conventionally fabricated scaffolds for alveolar bone regeneration in terms of architecture, mechanical properties, and regenerative outcomes. Review: Nineteen articles published between 2016 and 2026 were reviewed, comprising six reviews, six in vitro or animal studies, and seven clinical reports. In same-material comparisons, printed scaffolds showed more regular and reproducible pore networks, higher compressive strength (4.0 vs 1.7 MPa), 21-fold higher alkaline phosphatase activity, and higher cell viability (about 85% vs 50%) than porogen-leached or freeze-dried scaffolds, although the strength difference coincided with lower porosity and one freeze-dried scaffold was stiffer than its printed counterparts. Printed polymer scaffolds also degraded more slowly in vivo. In randomized trials, 3D-printed ceramic grafts achieved new bone formation and implant stability comparable to non-printed grafts (33.2% vs 31.4% new bone), with a modest advantage in percent bone volume (20.0% vs 16.4%) for patient-customized blocks. The evidence remains limited by heterogeneous materials and designs, small samples, short follow-up, and few head-to-head trials. Conclusion: 3D printing offers superior architectural control, customization, and handling, but current clinical evidence indicates equivalence rather than clear superiority in bone regeneration over conventionally fabricated scaffolds.

Keywords

3D printing; additive manufacturing; alveolar bone regeneration; bone tissue engineering; scaffold

Cite This Article

Kamadjaja, M. J. K., Kuntjoro, M., Azalia, J. (2026). 3D-Printed versus Conventionally Fabricated Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Narrative Review of Architecture, Mechanical Properties, and Regenerative Outcomes. International Journal of Scientific Advances (IJSCIA), Volume 7| Issue 6: Nov – Dec 2026, Pages 1048-1055. URL: https://www.ijscia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Volume7-Issue6-Nov-Dec-No.1128-1048-1055.pdf

Volume 7 | Issue 6: Nov – Dec 2026