ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative evaluation of different layer thickness in 3D-printed endodontic guides: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuided endodontics has become essential for achieving minimally invasive and predictable access cavity preparation in advanced canal obliteration. However, the dimensional accuracy of endodontic guides depends on several 3D printing parameters, particularly layer thickness. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of two different layer thicknesses—50 μm and 100 μm—on the dimensional accuracy of stereolithographically printed endodontic guides.
methodsTwenty-four endoguides were produced using a Form 3B+ printer (Formlabs, USA) with Biomed Clear Resin V2. Layer thickness was the only variable, while other printing parameters were standardized. After post-processing, specimens were scanned with a 3Shape E1 scanner, and STL files were superimposed using MeditDesign software. Dimensional deviations were calculated as root mean square (RMS, mm) values. Data were analyzed using an independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).
resultsGuides printed at 50 μm showed a mean RMS deviation of 0.066 ± 0.019 mm, while those printed at 100 μm exhibited 0.106 ± 0.035 mm (p = 0.002). Thinner layers resulted in significantly higher dimensional accuracy.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, reducing layer thickness significantly improved the dimensional fidelity of 3D-printed endodontic guides. However, although this difference was statistically significant, its clinical relevance should be interpreted with caution, as the absolute deviations observed in both groups were in the range of approximately 0.1 mm.
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.