ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Impact of Three-Dimensional Printer Technology on the Accuracy of Dental Implant Models.
Article in Materials (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.
- Four-Dimensional Printing of Shape Memory Polymers for Biomedical Applications: Advances in DLP and SLA Manufacturing.Polymers · 2025Review
- Comparative Evaluation of SLA and DLP 3D Printing in Dental Implant Guides: Impact on Fabrication Accuracy, Speed, and Resin Usage.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Drill Sleeve Housing in 3D-Printed and Milled Implant Surgical Guides: A 3D Analysis Considering Machine Type, Layer Thickness, Sleeve Position, and Steam Sterilization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the impact of different 3D printing technologies on the accuracy of implant positions in printed dental models, a crucial factor in implant-supported prosthetics. A standardized titanium model with three bone-level implants was scanned using an industrial scanner to create a virtual reference model. Ten intraoral scans of the same model were performed, and the generated STL files were used to design physical models printed with three different 3D printers: two utilizing digital light processing (DLP) technology and one employing stereolithography (SLA) (n = 30). The printed models were then rescanned, and deviations from the reference STL file were analyzed. Results showed that the SLA printer exhibited the highest deviations (0.26 ± 0.17 mm), whereas the DLP printers demonstrated greater accuracy, with one DLP system (0.07 ± 0.02 mm) performing slightly better than the other (0.12 ± 0.13 mm). The SLA printer exhibited the most significant errors in the vestibulo-oral and occlusal-apical directions. The findings suggest that DLP printers offer superior precision for implant-supported restorations in digital workflows. Clinically, the choice of 3D printing technology significantly impacts model accuracy, emphasizing the importance of selecting the appropriate printer based on the required precision.
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.