ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of printing orientation and resin thickness on flexural strength of direct 3D-printed aligners.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printable Aligner Resins: An In Vitro Study with FTIR Chemical Characterization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Review
- Influence of 3D Printer Type, Resin Material, Thickness, and Geometry on the Mechanical Properties of Directly Printed Clear Aligners.Polymers · 2026Article
- Micro-CT evaluation of aligner fit and thickness in 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners: Differences in relation to inner-surface offset design and tooth regions.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Optimizing printing protocols for the fabrication of 3D-printed attachments in clear aligner therapy: a comparative in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Printing Orientation and Ageing on Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Resins for Occlusal Splints.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Embrasure aligner fit and thickness in 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners: a microcomputed tomography study.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- The Influence of Printing Orientation on the Properties of 3D-Printed Polymeric Provisional Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Influence of Printing Orientation on the Flexural Strength of Different Light-Cured Resins Manufactured with Two 3D Printers: In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 4D-Printed Smart Materials in Clear Aligner Fabrication: A Comprehensive Review :.Galen medical 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect 3D-printed aligners served as a breakthrough era in clear aligner fabrication. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies evaluating their mechanical properties. The aim of this study was to compare direct 3D-printed aligners derived from different printing orientations (vertically, horizontally, 30, and 45 degrees) and thickness (0.5 and 0.7 mm) in terms of flexural strength.
methodsThis laboratory-based comparative study utilized 96 aligner flat specimens. They were designed, supported, and directly printed using shape memory resin, then randomly allocated into 8 groups. Group 1 (A, B, C, and D): 0.5 mm thickness printed vertically, horizontally, 30, and 45 degrees, respectively. Group 2 (A, B, C, and D): 0.7 mm thickness printed vertically, horizontally, 30, and 45 degrees, respectively. Each aligner specimen was placed on a custom-made bending jig, with the whole setup enclosed in a temperature-controlled water bath. Three-point bending test was performed using a universal testing machine, and the resulting force was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Student t-test for resin thickness comparison and one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc test for comparison between printing orientations. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between vertically, horizontally, 30, and 45 degrees printed aligner specimens. Aligner specimens of 0.7 mm thickness demonstrated significantly higher flexural strength values compared to those of 0.5 mm thickness.
conclusionsPrinting orientation did not alter the flexural strength of the direct 3D-printed aligner flat specimens, regardless of whether they were printed vertically, horizontally, or at angles of 30 or 45 degrees relative to the printer build plate. Additionally, specimens with a thickness of 0.7 mm exhibited higher bending resistance compared to those with a thickness of 0.5 mm.
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.