ArticleBMC oral health2025
Limited radiographic detectability of novel 3D printed materials used in dental surgery.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe digitalization of numerous dental workflows has significantly expanded the possibilities of digital treatment planning in recent years. By using additively manufactured templates and guides, preoperative planning can be realized reliably and minimally invasively on the patient. However, these devices may break under mechanical stress during use, so that fragments may remain in the surgical field, be swallowed or aspirated. This study investigates the radiologic detectability of additively manufactured materials in surrounding soft tissue.
methodsThe visual detectability of standardized scan bodies and splinters of 15 different materials used in dentistry was analyzed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Porcine muscle and subcutaneous tissue were used as surrounding structures. In addition, computed tomography (CT) was used to measure the radiation densities of the materials in Hounsfield units to obtain quantitative reference values for the recognizability of the materials in comparison with soft tissues.
resultsThe radiodensities in CT images of all modern materials used in computer-aided manufacturing ranged from 68.94 ± 5.32 HU to 130.47 ± 4.52 HU and were thus very similar to those of muscle tissue. In CBCT images, large cylinders as well as small splinters of these materials were hardly visible in both subcutaneous fat and muscular tissues. Overall, the small splinters were more difficult to differentiate from the surrounding tissue than the larger cylinders. The conventional dental materials Futar D
conclusionThe results of this study show that neither CT nor CBCT may currently not be suitable for visualising modern 3D-printed dental materials against surrounding soft tissue. This is due to the materials' insufficient radiopacity, which prevents clear delineation. Classic materials for temporal direct restorations and silicones were much easier to detect than the tested additively manufactured materials.
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.