Additive manufacturing (AM) of dental ceramics in prosthodontics has shown potential but faces challenges in clinical application. This review summarizes current AM technologies, materials, and applications, comparing them with traditional subtractive manufacturing (SM). AM technologies like stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), and direct inkjet printing (DIP) are used for ceramic restorations, offering comparable accuracy and strength to SM. However, AM has limitations in curved surface accuracy and strength reliability. Functionally graded additive manufacturing (FGAM) could enable biomimetic structures but lacks sufficient studies. AM is not yet suitable for large-scale clinical use but may replace SM in the future with further research. Key parameters affecting AM include suspension formula, layer thickness, and post-processing. Current AM technologies for ceramics include SLA, DLP, DIP, and 3D gel printing (3DGP), with SLA and DLP showing high accuracy. However, AM still struggles with surface finish and mechanical properties compared to SM. Studies show that AM crowns have similar or slightly worse accuracy than SM, with SLA and DLP showing better trueness but worse marginal fit. 3DGP and DIP also show promise but face challenges in accuracy and surface quality. Overall, AM has potential but requires further development to meet clinical standards.Additive manufacturing (AM) of dental ceramics in prosthodontics has shown potential but faces challenges in clinical application. This review summarizes current AM technologies, materials, and applications, comparing them with traditional subtractive manufacturing (SM). AM technologies like stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), and direct inkjet printing (DIP) are used for ceramic restorations, offering comparable accuracy and strength to SM. However, AM has limitations in curved surface accuracy and strength reliability. Functionally graded additive manufacturing (FGAM) could enable biomimetic structures but lacks sufficient studies. AM is not yet suitable for large-scale clinical use but may replace SM in the future with further research. Key parameters affecting AM include suspension formula, layer thickness, and post-processing. Current AM technologies for ceramics include SLA, DLP, DIP, and 3D gel printing (3DGP), with SLA and DLP showing high accuracy. However, AM still struggles with surface finish and mechanical properties compared to SM. Studies show that AM crowns have similar or slightly worse accuracy than SM, with SLA and DLP showing better trueness but worse marginal fit. 3DGP and DIP also show promise but face challenges in accuracy and surface quality. Overall, AM has potential but requires further development to meet clinical standards.