ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating and Comparing Flexure Strength of Dental Models Printed Using Fused Deposition Modelling, Digital Light Processing, and Stereolithography Apparatus Printers.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trifunctional synergistically designed 3D-Printed bone scaffold for infectious bone defect therapy: design strategy and clinical translation outlook.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Fit Accuracy of Plate-Type Retainers Fabricated Using Dental CAD/CAM Systems: A Controlled In Vitro Comparison Using Typodont-Derived Models.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Influence of Printing Orientation on the Flexural Strength of Different Light-Cured Resins Manufactured with Two 3D Printers: In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Systematic Review of the Quality of Stereolithographic Three-Dimensionally Printed Materials for Provisional Dental Restorations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe introduction of three-dimensional (3D) printing in dentistry has mainly focused on applications such as surgical planning, computer-guided templates, and digital impression conversions. Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, involves layering resin material sequentially to construct objects and is gaining recognition for its role in creating custom-made medical appliances. The field of orthodontics has also embraced this technological wave and with the advent of cost-effective printers and biocompatible resins, 3D printing has become increasingly feasible and popular in orthodontic clinics. The limitations of traditional plaster models may have prompted the emergence of 3D-printed models, but it led to enhancing treatment planning and device fabrication, particularly in orthodontics. Notable desktop printing technologies include fused deposition modelling (FDM), digital light processing (DLP), and stereolithography (SLA), each employing distinct methods and materials for fabricating appliances. Evaluating mechanical properties, like flexure strength, is crucial to determine the material's ability to withstand bending forces and thus prove useful in fabricating thermoformable appliances, surgical templates, etc. This study aims to assess the flexure strength of 3D-printed models using FDM, DLP, and SLA technology, providing insights into their suitability as replacements for conventional models and shedding some light on the durability and sustainability of 3D-printed models. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Cuboids measuring 20 x 5 x 2 mm were cut from models, creating 10 samples per printer group. These samples underwent flexure strength testing using a three-point bending system in a universal testing machine.
resultsThe FDM group exhibited the highest flexure strength at 69.36 ± 6.03 MPa, while the DLP group showed the lowest flexure strength at 67.47 ± 20.58 MPa. The results can be attributed to the differences in resin materials used for fabrication, with FDM using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) polymer and SLA/DLP using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and also to the variation in their printing mechanism.
conclusionThe findings affirm the suitability of FDM models for orthodontic applications, suggesting enhanced efficiency and reliability in clinical practices.
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.