ArticleDentistry journal2023
Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Influence of conventional and AI-assisted dental CAD software and 3D printing technology on the intaglio surface trueness of interim crowns.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of Different Impression and Fabrication Techniques on the Precision of Custom Metal Posts: Fully Digital, Semi-Digital, and Conventional.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Verification of extraoral versus intraoral scanning techniques: fit accuracy implications for 3D printed and milled zirconia crowns (An in-vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- TranslatingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluating 3D Hand Scanning Accuracy Across Trained and Untrained Students.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Manufacturing of Mandibular Total Edentulous Simulation Model for In Vitro Studies-Concept and Validation.Polymers · 2025Article
- Assessment of cone-beam CT technical image quality indicators and radiation dose for optimal STL model used in visual surgical planning.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- The Influence of Dental Virtualization, Restoration Types, and Placement Angles on the Trueness and Contact Space in 3D-Printed Crowns: A Comprehensive Exploration.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use.
methodsA typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender-InLAB), obtained the highest average (-0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819).
conclusionAlthough no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.
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.