ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of mechanical properties of different 3D printing technologies.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reusable 3D-printed microfluidic-on-fabric with modular electrodes for point-of-care NaAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Microliter-Scale Stereolithography Enables High-Resolution 3D Printing of Functional Extraction Sorbents.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Mechanical and surface properties of resin-based materials for permanent use fabricated by subtractive, additive, and hybrid manufacturing techniques.Odontology · 2026Article
- Mechanical and Time-Dependent Stability of K18-IBOA-Modified 3D-Printed Denture Base Resins.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Chemical and Mechanical Evolution of a Volumetric Additive Manufacturing (VAM) Resin Under High-Temperature Storage.Polymers · 2026Article
- Comparison of tensile bond strengths of different impression materials used with custom trays fabricated by 3D printing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of surface polishing on roughness, biofilm formation, and biocompatibility of LCD-printed denture base polymer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Dentistry: Evolution, Technologies, and Clinical Application.Polymers · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of different layer thickness in 3D-printed endodontic guides: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Review of Current Systems, Materials, and Protocols for 3D-Printed Splints, Crowns, and Dentures.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Four-Dimensional Printing of Shape Memory Polymers for Biomedical Applications: Advances in DLP and SLA Manufacturing.Polymers · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated and compared the mechanical properties of provisional 3D-printed polymers fabricated using three commonly used 3D printing technologies: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), and liquid crystal display (LCD). Ninety specimens, both bar-shaped and disc-shaped, were printed using standardized resin color and print settings for each technology. Flexural strength was measured using a universal testing machine, while surface hardness and roughness were evaluated using a micro-Vickers hardness tester and atomic force microscopy, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests at a significance level of p < 0.05. SLA demonstrated the highest flexural strength (93.39 ± 5.57 MPa), significantly higher than DLP (69.97 ± 8.48 MPa) and LCD (64.69 ± 8.98 MPa). Surface hardness was comparable across SLA (18.80 ± 0.57 kgf/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.