ArticleFuture science OA2026
Comparison of dental arch measurements between 3D-printed, digital, and stone casts.
Article in Future science OA, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of computer-aided design and manufacturing technologies in diagnosis, treatment planning, and fabrication of prosthetic restoration is changing how prosthodontic treatment is offered to patients. This study compares the precision of three-dimensional (3D) printed casts produced from optical scanners using the stereolithographic 3D printing technique, their digital replicas, and conventional stone casts. MATERIALS AND
methodsImpressions were taken from 13 patients. Inter-arch widths (intercanine/premolar/molar) were made for digital and prototyped models and compared with the original stone casts. The measurements on printed and conventional casts were taken using a digital caliper, whereas those on digital casts were measured directly.
resultsDigital casts showed significantly higher maxillary and mandibular intercanine width measurements than 3D-printed and Stone (Gypsum) measurements counterparts (p < 0.001). Additionally, digital casts exhibited significantly lower maxillary and mandibular inter-1st molar and inter-2nd molar widths than their 3D printed and gypsum counterparts (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between measurements obtained with gypsum and 3D-printed casts.
conclusionThe 3D-printed casts may be considered a viable alternative to gypsum casts, offering clinically acceptable precision for diagnosis, treatment planning, and the fabrication of prosthetic restorations. On the other hand, digital cast measurements exhibit significant variations from gypsum and 3D-printed casts.
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.