Evolution of Additive Manufacturing in Maxillofacial Prosthetic ‎Rehabilitation: A ‎‎Bibliometric and Clinical Evidence Mapping Study

Purpose: To investigate the evolution of additive manufacturing in maxillofacial ‎prosthetic rehabilitation ‎from 2000 to 2026 by integrating bibliometric analysis with clinical ‎evidence mapping, ‎emphasizing research trends, technological applications, and the maturity of ‎clinical evidence.

Materials and Methods: Original Scopus-indexed journal articles (2000–2026) were screened for direct or ‎indirect ‎additive manufacturing applications in maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. After full-‎text ‎assessment, 125 articles were included. Bibliometrix /Biblioshiny summarized publication ‎‎trends, sources, citations, and bibliographic indicators; VOSviewer was used for co-authorship, ‎‎country, keyword, bibliographic-coupling, and co-citation networks. Study designs and clinical ‎‎outcome reporting were independently mapped.

Results: The 125 publications, drawn from 56 sources, received 2,955 Scopus citations; output ‎peaked at ‎‎17 articles in 2025. The three leading prosthodontic journals contributed 56 articles ‎‎(44.8%). ‎The most cited paper received 133 citations. VOSviewer identified 53 recurrent authors, ‎‎36 ‎countries, 42 harmonized author keywords, 14 bibliographic-coupling clusters, and five ‎‎normalized co-citation clusters. Single-patient reports predominated (55.2%), and only ‎seven ‎studies (5.6%) used comparative clinical designs. Patient-reported feedback was confirmed ‎in ‎‎37 of 98 clinically oriented reports, with structured instruments in nine and prosthesis follow-up ‎‎in 29.

Conclusion: Additive manufacturing ‎ research in maxillofacial prosthetics has expanded substantially, ‎progressing ‎from technical development toward diverse clinical applications. However, the ‎literature remains ‎dominated by descriptive reports, with limited comparative evidence and ‎inconsistent clinical ‎outcome reporting. (Int J Maxillofac Prosthetics 2026;9:26-39)