ArticlePolymers2025
Physico-Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Filament Materials for Mouthguard Manufacturing.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimization of 3D Printing Parameters for the Production of Mouthguards.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mouthguards are recommended for all sports that may cause injuries to the head and oral cavity. Custom mouthguards, made conventionally in the thermoforming process from ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), face challenges with thinning at the incisor area during the process. In contrast, additive manufacturing (AM) processes enable the precise reproduction of the dimensions specified in a computer-aided design (CAD) model. The potential use of filament extrusion materials in the fabrication of custom mouthguards has not yet been explored in comparative studies. Our research aimed to compare five commercially available filaments for the material extrusion (MEX) also known as fused deposition modelling (FDM) of custom mouthguards using a desktop 3D printer. Samples made using Copper 3D PLActive, Spectrum Medical ABS, Braskem Bio EVA, DSM Arnitel ID 2045, and NinjaFlex were compared to EVA Erkoflex, which served as a control sample. The samples underwent tests for ultimate tensile strength (UTS), split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) performance, drop-ball impact, abrasion resistance, absorption, and solubility. The results showed that Copper 3D PLActive and Spectrum Medical ABS had the highest tensile strength. DSM Arnitel ID 2045 had the highest dynamic property performance, measured with the SHPB and drop-ball tests. On the other hand, NinjaFlex exhibited the lowest abrasion resistance and the highest absorption and solubility. DSM Arnitel ID 2045's absorption and solubility levels were comparable to those of EVA, but had significantly lower abrasion resistance. Ultimately, DSM Arnitel ID 2045 is recommended as the best filament for 3D-printing mouthguards. The properties of this biocompatible material ensure high-impact energy absorption while maintaining low fluid sorption and solubility, supporting its safe intra-oral application for mouthguard fabrication. However, its low abrasion resistance indicated that mouthguards made from this material may need to be replaced more frequently.
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.