ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2024
The Evaluation of the Trueness of Dental Mastercasts Obtained through Different 3D Printing Technologies.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chromatic Stability of Three Photopolymerizable Resins for Additive Manufacturing Following Immersion in Artificial Saliva: A Comparative Spectrophotometric Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- In Vitro Accuracy Analysis of Intraoral Scanning Strategies: A Comparison of Two Contemporary IOS Systems.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Transforming Dental Care, Practice and Education with Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing: Innovations in Materials, Technologies, and Future Pathways.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Effect of 3D printing technology, build orientation, and shell thickness on the accuracy of full-arch dental models for fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Influence of the Processing Method on the Nano-Mechanical Properties and Porosity of Dental Acrylic Resins Fabricated by Heat-Curing, 3D Printing and Milling Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Composite Filament Materials for 3D-Printed Drone Parts: Advancements in Mechanical Strength, Weight Optimization and Embedded Electronics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparing the accuracy of 3D-printed casts versus plaster casts for tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations.Dental research journal · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contemporary dentistry, several 3D printing techniques, including a stereolithography apparatus (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), liquid crystal display (LCD), and PolyJet 3D inkjet printing technology (PolyJet), are employed for model production. Despite their widespread use, there remains a paucity of the literature regarding the trueness and precision of these devices in dental applications. Existing studies comparing the accuracy of dental models manufactured by different printing technologies yield disparate conclusions regarding dental prosthesis manufacturing. This study aimed to test two null hypotheses: first, that the trueness of various new-generation 3D printers is equivalent, and second, that the trueness of printing by these printers is sufficient for achieving high-precision mastercasts in dental prosthodontics manufacturing. The research focuses on evaluating the trueness of five contemporary dental 3D printers: Anycubic Mono X 6Ks (Hongkong Anycubic Technology Co., Hongkong, China), Asiga Max (Asiga, Sydney, Australia), Creo C5 (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), Form 3B (Formlabs, Boston, MA, USA), and J5 Dentajet (Stratasys Ltd., Eden Prairie, MN, USA). The methodology employed involved the creation of a digital test object using Blender software, adhering meticulously to the dimensions outlined in ISO standard 20896-1. These dimensions were chosen to be both relevant for this study and representative of clinical scenarios. Subsequently, the test object was printed and precise measurements were conducted utilizing a metrology-type Nikon XTH225 ST Reflection target in conjunction with VGStudio MAX analysis software. The results of our investigation revealed clinically negligible deviations in ball dimensions across all printers, with the maximum observed deviations ranging between 1.17% and 2.03% (notably observed in the Creo C5 printer). Transversal distortion exhibited variance based on the linear accuracy of each printer, with Stratasys21 and Formlabs 3B demonstrating superior accuracy among the evaluated printers. Distortions in the analyzed dimensions (specifically, anterior b-c, posterior a-d, and oblique a-c) were found to be uniform. In conclusion, while the first null hypothesis was rejected, indicating variations in trueness among the 3D printers assessed, our findings affirm the suitability of all five analyzed 3D printers for clinical applications. Consequently, these printers can be utilized for the fabrication of high-precision mastercasts in dental prosthodontics manufacturing.
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.