ArticleCureus2026
Accuracy of 3D-Scanned Full-Arch Dentition Versus 3D-Printed Models Generated Using Various 3D Printers Based on Linear Measurements.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of 3D-scanned full-arch dentition and 3D-printed models generated from various 3D printers and resin combinations using linear measurements. MATERIALS AND
methodsIntraoral scans of the mandibular arches of 30 patients were obtained using Primescan Dentsply Sirona (Dentsply Sirona Inc., USA/Germany), exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files, and mesiodistal, intercanine, and intermolar width measurements were made using Maestro 3D Dental Studio software, version 6.0 (AGE Solutions S.r.l., Italy), as the reference standard. STL files were processed using Chitubox Basic software, version 2.3 (CBD-Tech (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., China), and printed using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printers: Phrozen Sonic Mighty 4K (Phrozen Technology Co., Ltd., Taiwan) and Elegoo Saturn Ultra 4K (Shenzhen Elegoo Technology Co., Ltd., China), with Phrozen Aqua Gray 4K and Elegoo Standard photopolymer resins, yielding 120 models (30/group). Models were cleaned and cured using an Anycubic Cleaning and Curing Machine-Plus (Shenzhen Anycubic Technology Co., Ltd., China) and measured with Vernier calipers (Mitutoyo Corporation, Japan). Intra-examiner reliability was assessed after one week.
resultsData were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Tukey test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) confirmed intra-examiner reliability (ICC > 0.98). No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between printed models and intraoral scans. The Elegoo printer with Phrozen resin showed the highest accuracy, while the Phrozen printer with Elegoo resin showed some deviation; all measurements were within clinically acceptable limits.
conclusion3D-printed models showed comparable linear measurement accuracy to intraoral scans, with consistent reliability and clinically acceptable variations across printer-resin combinations.
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.