ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Effect of wall thickness of 3D-printed models on resisting deformation from thermal forming in-office aligners.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dental Casts for Fixed Dental Prostheses Printed with SLA Technology: Influence of External Shell Thickness and Printing Orientation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of wall thickness of 3D-printed models on resisting deformation from thermal forming in-office aligners.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFabricating clear aligners by thermoforming three-dimensional printed dental models requires a high degree of accuracy. It is unknown whether model thickness affects the accuracy when used to thermoform aligners. PURPOSE: This research utilizes three-dimensional printed models made with differing wall thicknesses to determine its effect on their ability to withstand deformation during aligner fabrication.
methodsA total of 50 models of different wall thickness (10 each of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 mm, and solid) were printed using model resin (Model V2, Formlabs) on a low-force stereolithography printer (Form 3B, Formlabs). Aligners were then fabricated using a thermal pressure forming machine (Biostar V, Great Lakes Dental Technologies) utilizing 25 s cycles to adapt 0.030″ acrylic sheets (Invisacryl, Great Lakes Dental Technologies), then removed from the models and sprayed with a contrast powder (Optispray, Dentsply Sirona) to aid in scanning with an intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). Each aligner's data was then compared to the original file used for printing with 3D comparison software (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems).
resultsThe results show model thickness greater than or equal to 2.0 mm produced clinically acceptable results within the margin of error (0.3 mm). A total of 0.5 mm thickness failed to withstand thermal forming in 4 of the 10 trials. A total of 0.5 mm produced 27.56% of results in tolerance, 1.0 mm produced 75.66% of results in tolerance, 1.5 mm had 80.38% of results in tolerance, 86.82% of 2 mm models were in tolerance, and solid had 96.45% of results in tolerance.
conclusionHollow models of thicknesses 2.0 mm and solid models produced clinically acceptable aligners while utilizing less resin per unit compared to solid models, thus being more cost effective, time efficient and eco-friendly. Therefore, a recommendation can be made to print hollow models with a shell thickness of greater than 2.0 mm for aligner fabrication.
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.