ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2022
Trueness of 3D printed partial denture frameworks: build orientations and support structure density parameters.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of build orientation on the marginal and internal fit of 3-D printed provisional fixed dental prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Support Spacing on the Region-Specific Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 3D-printed full-arch denture teeth: impact of printing orientation on the trueness and precision in vitro.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of print angle on accuracy of 3D printed dental models.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of vacuum sealing and heat treatment on the accuracy of castable resin patterns for denture frameworks fabricated using digital light processing.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Role of Nurses in Enhancing Removable Dental Prostheses Hygiene.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- The Influence of Printing Orientation on the Properties of 3D-Printed Polymeric Provisional Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Experimental study on dimensional variations of 3D printed dental models based on printing orientation.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Influence of Build Orientation on the Surface Roughness and Flexural Strength of 3D-Printed Denture Base Resin and Its Comparison with CAD-CAM Milled Denture Base Resin.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to assess the influence of build orientations and density of support structures on the trueness of the 3D printed removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks. MATERIALS AND
methodsA maxillary Kennedy class III and mandibular class I casts were 3D scanned and used to design and produce two 3D virtual models of RPD frameworks. Using digital light processing (DLP) 3D printing, 47 RPD frameworks were fabricated at 3 different build orientations (100, 135 and 150-degree angles) and 2 support structure densities. All frameworks were scanned and 3D compared to the original virtual RPD models by metrology software to check 3D deviations quantitatively and qualitatively. The accuracy data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA for build orientation comparison and independent sample t-test for structure density comparison at (α = .05). Points study analysis targeting RPD components and representative color maps were also studied.
resultsThe build orientation of 135-degree angle of the maxillary frameworks showed the lowest deviation at the clasp arms of tooth 26 of the 135-degree angle group. The mandibular frameworks with 150-degree angle build orientation showed the least deviation at the rest on tooth 44 and the arm of the I-bar clasp of tooth 45. No significant difference was seen between different support structure densities.
conclusionBuild orientation had an influence on the accuracy of the frameworks, especially at a 135-degree angle of maxillary design and 150-degree of mandibular design. The difference in the support's density structure revealed no considerable effect on the accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.