Objective <p>This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and complication rate of absorbable versus non-absorbable 3D-printed, patient-customized, maxillofacial implants in facial trauma patients.</p> Data sources <p>A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted.</p> Methods <p>A systematic review and single-proportion meta-analysis was conducted employing PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) yielded a total of 4087 results. After removing duplicates, 16 articles underwent full-text analysis, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. The inclusion focused on primary clinical data involving 3D-printed, patient-specific implants for facial bone fracture restorations. Exclusion criteria removed studies without full text, ongoing studies, animal studies, and studies not utilizing CAD/CAM for their implants.</p> Results <p>A total of 114 patients underwent insertion of 3D-printed implants. Patients receiving non-absorbable implants had a success rate of 84% (95% CI: 74–91), with complications in 12 patients. Patients receiving absorbable implants achieved a 100% success rate (95% CI: 0-100), with zero complications.</p> Conclusion <p>The study suggests absorbable 3D-printed implants provide superior results with fewer complications compared to non-absorbable 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial fractures.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>