ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro analysis of 3D-printed implant casts: how print orientation affects accuracy in full arch implant casts?
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3D-printed implant models of a complete edentulous arch with different print orientations (POs).
methodsAn acrylic resin edentulous mandibular model provided with 4 straight multi-unit abutment (MUA) implant analogs was used. The model was scanned ten times using a desktop optical scanner (E4, 3Shape), and these scans were superimposed with the aid of reverse engineering (Geomagic Design X) to obtain a single reference cast for best representing the true geometry. Conventional impressions with open-tray splinted technique (n = 12) and digital impressions with an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios5, 3shape) (n = 12) were performed. The implant casts were designed using the IOS data (Model Designer, 3Shape). 3D-printed implant casts were manufactured via a digital light processing printer at 0-, 22.5-, 45-, 67.5-, and 90 degrees of PO (n = 12). Conventional and 3D-printed implant casts were scanned using the desktop optical scanner. The digital data of the scan bodies was superimposed on the casts. Virtual models were superimposed on reference data using metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Linear discrepancies on the x-, y-, and z-axes, 3D discrepancies, and angular discrepancies were measured. Linear discrepancies in axes and overall linear discrepancies were evaluated via the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc Dunn's test. Angular discrepancies were assessed via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's pairwise comparison tests.
resultsNo significant differences were found in 3D or angular discrepancies between conventional models, IOS data, or 90-degree of PO (p > 0.05). The angular deviations of the 0-degree PO group were not significantly different from the conventional, IOS, and the 90-degree PO groups (p > 0.05); however, the 3D discrepancies were higher in this group (p > 0.05). The 3D discrepancies of the 90-degree PO group were significantly lower than those of the 0-, 45-, and 67.5-degree PO groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found in angular discrepancies between PO groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionIOS data are as accurate as conventional models. The highest accuracy of 3D-printed implant models can be obtained with 90 degrees of PO. PO does not influence the angular discrepancies of 3D-printed implant models.
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.