ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
An Evaluation of the Performance of Low-Cost Resin Printers in Orthodontics.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Influence of 3D Printer Type, Resin Material, Thickness, and Geometry on the Mechanical Properties of Directly Printed Clear Aligners.Polymers · 2026Article
- Dimensional accuracy of clear aligners fabricated using different LCD 3D printer resolutions: an in-vitro study.European oral research · 2026Article
- Effect of Different Printing Designs and Resin Types on the Accuracy of Orthodontic Model.Polymers · 2025Article
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study evaluated the trueness and precision of three low-cost 3D printers compared to a professional-grade printer in fabricating orthodontic models.
methodsTwo upper dental models, one crowded and one non-crowded, were designed using Blenderfordental and Autolign. The models were printed with Anycubic M3 Premium, Anycubic Photon D2, Phrozen Sonic Mini 8K, and Ackuretta Sol at 45° and 90° using Elegoo orthodontic and Ackuretta Curo resins. A total of 384 models were produced: 256 crowded (128 at 90° and 128 at 45°) and 128 non-crowded (all at 45°). Chitubox Dental Slicer and ALPHA AI slicer were used for slicing. Post-processing involved cleaning with Ackuretta Cleani and curing in Ackuretta Curie. The models were scanned with Smartoptics Vinyl Open Air. Trueness was assessed using RMS deviation analysis in CloudCompare and linear measurements.
resultsOne-way ANOVA showed significant differences in trueness among the printers at 45° (
conclusionsThe professional-grade printer demonstrated the best performance overall. Printing at a 45° build angle resulted in improved accuracy. Despite differences among devices, all printers produced results within clinically acceptable limits for orthodontic use.
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.