ArticleBMC oral health2023
Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 2025Review
- Dimensional Accuracy Assessment of Medical Anatomical Models Produced by Hospital-Based Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printer.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Machine learning assisted 5-part tooth segmentation method for CBCT-based dental age estimation in adults.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments.
methodsA study was performed to investigate the trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated using different technology based on low-, medium-, and high-cost 3D printers. Following the segmentation of a patient's skull, the model was printed by: (i) a low-cost fused filament fabrication printer; (ii) a medium-cost stereolithography printer; and (iii) a high-cost material jetting printer. The fabricated models were later scanned by industrial computed tomography and superimposed onto the original reference virtual model by applying surface-based registration. A part comparison color-coded analysis was conducted for assessing the difference between the reference and scanned models. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis.
resultsThe model printed with the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer showed the highest mean absolute error ([Formula: see text]), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly ([Formula: see text]) lower error compared to the low-cost printer.
conclusionsBoth stereolithography and material jetting based printers, belonging to the medium- and high-cost market segment, were able to replicate the skeletal anatomy with optimal trueness, which might be suitable for patient-specific treatment planning tasks in craniomaxillofacial surgery. In contrast, the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer could serve as a cost-effective alternative for anatomical education, and/or patient communication.
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.