ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Effect of printing technology and orientation on the accuracy of three-dimensional printed retainers.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of build orientation on the marginal and internal fit of 3-D printed provisional fixed dental prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of print angle on dimensional accuracy and printing efficiency of directly 3D-printed clear aligners.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Fit Accuracy of Plate-Type Retainers Fabricated Using Dental CAD/CAM Systems: A Controlled In Vitro Comparison Using Typodont-Derived Models.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of printer technology and print orientation on the accuracy of directly printed retainers. MATERIALS AND
methodsDigital retainers were printed with two different printing technologies: digital light processing (DLP) and stereolithography (SLA), using two different orientations: 0° and 90°. After printing, the retainers (n = 40) were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography. The DICOM files were then converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. Comparison of the printed retainers with a master file was done by superimposition using a three-dimensional (3D) best-fit tool in Geomagic software. A ±0.25 mm tolerance was set to detect differences between the superimposed files. Statistical analysis was conducted (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, with Bonferroni correction).
resultsThe lowest median average deviation was observed for the DLP horizontally printed models (median, [interquartile range (IQR)] = 0.01 mm, [-0.01, 0.02]) followed by the SLA horizontally printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 0.05 mm, [0.03, 0.07]). The highest median inside the tolerance levels ratio was observed for the horizontally SLA printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.9%, [74.4, 82.4%]) followed by the horizontally DLP printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.2%, [74.5, 80.7%]).
conclusionsBoth technologies (DLP and SLA) showed 3D printed results compatible with orthodontic clinical needs. Printing orientation was more important than printer type regarding its accuracy. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of direct printed appliances clinically.
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.