ArticleHeliyon2024
Dimensional accuracy and surface characteristics of complete-arch cast manufactured by six 3D printers.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Additive manufacturing for Dentistry: A comprehensive review of techniques and applications.Progress in materials science · 2026Article
- Effect of print angle on dimensional accuracy and printing efficiency of directly 3D-printed clear aligners.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dimensional accuracy of clear aligners fabricated using different LCD 3D printer resolutions: an in-vitro study.European oral research · 2026Article
- Digital Orthodontics: Posterior crossbite correction and arch expansion with directly 3-dimensional printed clear aligners.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Effects of 3D-printers and manufacturer-specified post-curing units on the dimensional accuracy, compressive strength, and degree of conversion of resin for fixed dental prostheses.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of mechanical properties of different 3D printing technologies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative in vitro study on wear resistance and colour stability of 3D-printed, milled, and conventional PMMA denture teeth.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigations into the Material Characteristics of Selected Plastics Manufactured Using SLA-Type Additive Methods.Polymers · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate and compare the horizontal and vertical accuracies of complete-arch casts produced by six 3D printers with different printing principles and resolutions using a low-viscosity resin material. Methods: A reference cast was designed by CAD software. The 3D printers used were DLPa (Asiga MAX), DLPk (cara Print 4.0), LCD2o (Ondemand 2 K Printer), LCD2p (Photon Mono X), LCD4s (SONIC 4 K), and SLA (ZENITH U). Ten casts were printed for each 3D printer using a low-viscosity resin. The accuracy of each printed cast was evaluated using shell-to-shell deviations, 12 linear, one angular, and five height deviations, with a reference cast as the control. The surface features of the casts were examined using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and digital cameras. Results: The evaluation of shell-to-shell deviation revealed that DLPa and SLA printers exhibited low trueness values, whereas LCD printers displayed high trueness values. Among the LCD printers, LCD4s and LCD2o exhibited the lowest and highest trueness values, respectively. DLPa printers showed lower trueness values for intercanine and intermolar distances, whereas LCD printers generally demonstrated high trueness values. However, LCD4s exhibited similar trueness values to those of SLA and DLPk. The height deviation was smallest in the anterior area, whereas the largest height deviation occurred in the canine teeth. The surface characteristics indicated that the SLA casts had greater light reflection and blunt canine tips. The FE-SEM observations highlighted that the LCD and DLP printers exhibited varying layer characteristics, with some presenting rough and uneven borders in the anterior lingual area. Significance: The accuracy of 3D printed casts varied among the 3D printer groups: DLPa and SLA were accurate for shell-to-shell deviation, with DLPa being the most accurate for linear and angular deviations. Regardless of the XY resolution, the DLP printers outperformed the LCD printers. Among the LCD group of 3D printers, higher-resolution LCD4s demonstrated increased accuracy. The SLA exhibited soft layer borders in the FE-SEM owing to its laser spot characteristics and prominent light reflection in the digital camera images.
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.