ArticlePolymers2024
Spatial Trueness Evaluation of 3D-Printed Dental Model Made of Photopolymer Resin: Use of Special Structurized Dental Model.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Apical Gap, Adaptation, and Trueness of Direct and Indirect Customized Post-and-Core Restorations Fabricated by the Casting, Milling, and Selective Laser Melting Techniques.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Novel Digital-Based Surgical Guide in the Limited Interocclusal Distance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Various 3D printers are available for dental practice; however, a comprehensive accuracy evaluation method to effectively guide practitioners is lacking. This in vitro study aimed to propose an optimized method to evaluate the spatial trueness of a 3D-printed dental model made of photopolymer resin based on a special structurized dental model, and provide the preliminary evaluation results of six 3D printers. (2) Methods: A structurized dental model comprising several geometrical configurations was designed based on dental crown and arch measurement data reported in previous studies. Ninety-six feature sizes can be directly measured on this original model with minimized manual measurement errors. Six types of photo-curing 3D printers, including Objet30 Pro using the Polyjet technique, Projet 3510 HD Plus using the Multijet technique, Perfactory DDP and DLP 800d using the DLP technique, Form2 and Form3 using the SLA technique, and each printer's respective 3D-printable dental model materials, were used to fabricate one set of physical models each. Regarding the feature sizes of the simulated dental crowns and dental arches, linear measurements were recorded. The scanned digital models were compared with the design data, and 3D form errors (including overall 3D deviation; flatness, parallelism, and perpendicularity errors) were measured. (3) Results: The lowest overall 3D deviation, flatness, parallelism, and perpendicularity errors were noted for the models printed using the Objet30 Pro (overall value: 45 μm), Form3 (0.061 ± 0.019 mm), Objet30 Pro (0.138 ± 0.068°), and Projet 3510 HD Plus (0.095 ± 0.070°), respectively. In color difference maps, different deformation patterns were observed in the printed models. The feature size proved most accurate for the Objet30 Pro fabricated models (occlusal plane error: 0.02 ± 0.36%, occlusogingival direction error: -0.06 ± 0.09%). (4) Conclusions: The authors investigated a novel evaluation approach for the spatial trueness of a 3D-printed dental model made of photopolymer resin based on a structurized dental model. This method can objectively and comprehensively evaluate the spatial trueness of 3D-printed dental models and has a good repeatability and generalizability.
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.