Article3D printing in medicine2025
Conventional vs. 3D printed band and loop space maintainers: a fracture strength analysis.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premature loss of primary teeth is a common occurrence in pediatric dentistry and often necessitates the use of space maintainers to prevent complications. Traditional space maintainers, such as band and loop space maintainers (BLSM), have been widely used, but are fabricated using conventional methods. With advancements in technology, three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a promising alternative for fabricating dental appliances including space maintainers. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the fracture strengths of conventional band and loop space maintainers (C-BLSMs) fabricated using stainless steel with that of 3D printed BLSMs manufactured using additive manufacturing techniques. Fifteen C-BLSM and fifteen 3D printed BLSMs were fabricated and subjected to fracture-strength testing using a universal testing machine. The maximum occlusal bite force in the mixed dentition was determined based on established literature. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the mean fracture resistance between the two groups. The mean fracture resistance of the 3D printed BLSMs was significantly higher (308.53 N) than that of C-BLSMs (130.85 N). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), highlighting the superior mechanical properties of 3D printed BLSMs. Three-dimensional printing technology offers significant advantages in terms of fracture strength compared with conventional fabrication methods for BLSMs.
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.