ArticleBMC oral health2025
Fabrication of lingual fixed retainers on 2D prints: testing A novel workflow.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel workflow to produce Lingual Fixed Retainers (LFRs) using 2D prints compared to the conventional method.
methodsTwenty-three near-debond orthodontic casts were scanned using an intraoral 3D scanner. A 3D calibration model was produced to calibrate screenshots of 2D slices of the 3D models. After slicing, The 2D slices were then 2D-printed on an A4 paper. Dimensional accuracy of the 2D prints was checked using calibration marks set 50 mm apart within the calibration file. Two sets of 22 LFRs were made, a set on 2D prints and another on the stone casts. LFRs were compared regarding adaptation at individual teeth, overall placement decision, and "superiority of fit" among other things. All ratings were done twice, 1-week apart for reliability testing. Differences between groups were tested using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsA total of 264 tooth-retainer adaptations were rated. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to the Chi-square test (p = 0.233). All 44 LFRs were "deliverable" with none needing to be sent back to the lab. The superiority of fit was in favor of the conventional method in half of the retainers (p = < 0.001). Residual irregularity had no effect on any tested outcome (p > 0.05).
conclusionCalibrated 2D prints can be successfully used to fabricate LFRs. All 2D and 3D LFRs were deliverable. Conventional casts produced superior LFR fit than 2D prints. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This workflow could allow dental clinics to expand the utility of their 3D scanners even without a 3D printing setup, reducing cost, environmental and health impacts of 3D printing.
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.