ArticleScientific reports2025
Influence of 3D printing angles on the accuracy of indirect adhesion transfer models: an in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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 thermoformed tray architecture on transfer accuracy of lingual brackets: A prospective clinical study.PloS one · 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
- Effect of Different Printing Designs and Resin Types on the Accuracy of Orthodontic Model.Polymers · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different Angle printing on the model on the printing platform and whether it affects the later transfer accuracy. Ten bracket transfer models were printed on the platform of the 3D printer in four ways: 0° without support rod, 0°, 45° and 90° with support rod. Transfer guide plates for transfer brackets were made using PVS. The linear and angular discrepancies were determined digitally by measuring six different dimensions. The best performance was achieved at 90° with a support bar, with mesiogingival wing center point gap and diogingival wing center point gap of 0.169 and 0.176, respectively (P < 0.05). The linear deviation of groups A and B in the vertical direction was highest (0.285 (P < 0.001) and 0.283 (P < 0.001), respectively) when the transfer guide plate was made by PVS for the transfer bracket, followed by the proximal and distal direction. The best performance was achieved in the Orovestibular. The printing angle of the 3D indirect bonding slot transfer model on the printing platform significantly impacts the transfer accuracy, with the accuracy of the 45° and 90° bracket models having the least impact. A minimum transfer error of 90° since 90° 3D printed bracket transfer models with support rods have the best reliability.
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.