ArticleBioinformation2024
3D printed full-arch versus digital reference dental models: A systematic review.
Article in Bioinformation, 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.
- Multiscale Design of Dental Restorative Materials: Mechanistic Foundations, Technological Innovations, and Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Three-Dimensional Manufacturing of Mandibular Total Edentulous Simulation Model for In Vitro Studies-Concept and Validation.Polymers · 2025Article
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of different 3D printing techniques used for fabricating full-arch dental models against digital reference models. The review included studies that assessed the accuracy of stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), PolyJet and fused filament fabrication (FFF) technologies. A total of seven studies were analyzed, providing insights into the trueness and precision of 3D-printed models. The findings reveal that while all examined 3D printing technologies produced models with clinically acceptable accuracy, DLP and PolyJet techniques consistently demonstrated superior precision and trueness compared to SLA and FFF. The results indicate that DLP and PolyJet technologies are particularly suitable for applications requiring high dimensional fidelity, such as in Prosthodontics. However, the studies also highlighted some limitations, including small sample sizes and variations in study design, which may impact the generalizability of the results. Future research should focus on large-scale clinical trials and explore the impact of post-processing on model accuracy. This review underscores the importance of selecting appropriate 3D printing technologies based on clinical requirements to ensure optimal outcomes in dental prosthetics.
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.