ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023
Comparative Analysis of Fused Deposition Modeling and Digital Light Processing Techniques for Dimensional Accuracy in Clear Aligner Manufacturing.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The flexural strength of 3D-printed provisional restorations fabricated with different resins: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Proof-of-Concept Digital-Physical Workflow for Clear Aligner Manufacturing.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy for printing dental models used for the manufacture of clear dental aligners. MATERIAL AND METHODS Based on the intraoral scan of an adult patient, a sequence of 10 aligner models was created using BlueSkyPlan4. The test models (n=30) were fabricated with 2 desktop 3D printers: (DLP) and (FDM) printers. Two groups of samples were created (digitized using a desktop optical scanner). To calculate trueness (n=20) and precision (n=10), printed models were compared to the source files (REF). REF, DLP, and FDM files were superimposed and converted to point clouds. The cloud-to-cloud distances were calculated using CloudCompare software. Using the same algorithm, distortions of models were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS Significant differences were found between the trueness and precision of DLP and FDM groups. The average calculated trueness of DLP and FDM was 0.096 mm (0.021) (P<0.001) and 0.063 mm (0.024) (P<0.001), respectively. The average calculated precision of DLP and FDM was 0.027 mm (0.003) (P<0.001) and 0.036 mm (0.003) (P<0.001), respectively. A widening (0.158 mmfor DLP and 0.093 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) and twisting (0.03 mmfor DLP and 0.043 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) of the printed models was observed. CONCLUSIONS Both printers had sufficient precision for aligner models manufacturing. FDM showed a higher trueness and this device can be applied as an alternative to DLP. Polymerization shrinkage is a significant factor in decreasing the trueness of DLP printers.
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.