ArticleScientific reports2025
Effect of 3D printing technology, build orientation, and shell thickness on the accuracy of full-arch dental models for fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D-printed full-arch denture teeth: impact of printing orientation on the trueness and precision in vitro.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of silica nanoparticle sedimentation on the mechanical, surface properties and trueness of DLP-printed dental resin.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Dimensional Accuracy and Short-Term Stability of Orthodontic Resin-Printed Models: A Closed Dental System Compared with Commercial Desktop Workflows.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of Build Platform Position on the Trueness and Precision of LCD 3D-Printed Orthognathic Surgical Splints.Dentistry journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of 3D printing technology (SLA vs. DLP), print orientation (0°, 10°, 20°), and model shell thickness (2 mm vs. 4 mm) on the manufacturing accuracy of full-arch dental casts with teeth preparations. A reference STL file of a maxillary arch, featuring preparations for a posterior crown and a three-unit bridge, was used to fabricate 144 printed models (72 with SLA and 72 with DLP). Each technology group was subdivided based on print orientation (0°, 10°, 20°) and shell thickness (2 mm, 4 mm), resulting in 12 subgroups with n = 12 each. All models were scanned and analyzed for global and landmark-level deviations using surface superimposition (Geomagic Control X). Trueness was calculated via root mean square (RMS) error, and precision was determined as standard deviation (SD). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test to assess trueness, and precision was evaluated using Levene's median-based test (α = 0.05). Printing technology (DLP vs. SLA), model orientation, and shell thickness showed no significant impact on the overall accuracy, as measured by trueness (RMS: p = 0.453-1.000) and precision (SD: p = 0.117). The overall trueness (RMS) values ranged from 73.9 to 194 µm, with all groups remaining below the clinical acceptability threshold (< 0.2 mm). Isolated significant differences were observed at specific anatomical points but did not impact overall model performance. The type of printing technology, orientation angle, and shell thickness did not significantly affect the global accuracy of full-arch models for fixed prosthodontics.
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.