ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of the Accuracy of Two Non-dental 3D Printers and a Standard Dental 3D Printer for Printing Dental Models: An In Vitro 3D Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reimagining Dental Education: Integrating Digital Technologies for a Global, Digitally Native Generation-A Perspective.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Dimensional Accuracy and Short-Term Stability of Orthodontic Resin-Printed Models: A Closed Dental System Compared with Commercial Desktop Workflows.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Guided Endodontics-Potential and Limitations.Australian dental journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the majority of dentists and lab techs recommend dental-specific desktop printers, many of them use cheaper, more affordable 3D printers in their practice. The study aimed to compare the accuracy of two commercial non-dental stereolithography (SLA) 3D printers with a dental 3D printer for diagnostic dental casts. Methods: A prototype stereolithographic (Standard Triangle/Tessellation Language (STL)) model of a dentoform was used as a master model to be printed by three 3D printers (n=10 for each printer). The casts were post-processed according to the individual manufacturer's recommendation and then scanned using a desktop dental lab scanner to produce STL files. The STL for each cast was superimposed onto the original STL master model file and dimensional discrepancies were measured. Results: The results demonstrated a clear hierarchy in the accuracy of the 3D-printed models. The dental-specific 3D printer, Form 3B (Formlabs, Somerville, USA), produced models with the highest accuracy, exhibiting an average deviation of 37±5 µm from the original master model. Among the non-dental printers, the Mars 2 Pro (Elegoo, Shenzhen, China) showed reasonable accuracy with an average deviation of 47±22 µm, while the QiDi Tech (Qidi Technology, Zhejiang, China) had a much larger average deviation of 649±75 µm, indicating poor accuracy. Statistical analysis confirmed significant differences in mean deviations between Form 3B and QiDi Tech (t-test; p<0.01) and between Form 3B and Mars 2 Pro (t-test; p=0.05). These findings highlight the superior performance of the dental-specific 3D printer.
conclusionsDental-specific desktop SLA 3D printers appear to have better accuracy than non-dental desktop 3D printers. When a non-dental 3D printer is used, the accuracy of these 3D printers may or may not be sufficient for dental applications.
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.