Dental 3D-Printing: Transferring Art from the Laboratories to the Clinics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has changed the face of dentistry over the past decade. 3D printing is a versatile technique that allows the fabrication of fully automated, tailor-made treatment plans, thereby delivering personalized dental devices and aids to the patients. It is highly efficient, reproducible, and provides fast and accurate results in an affordable manner. With persistent efforts among dentists for refining their practice, dental clinics are now acclimatizing from conventional treatment methods to a fully digital workflow to treat their patients. Apart from its clinical success, 3D printing techniques are now employed in developing haptic simulators, precise models for dental education, including patient awareness. In this narrative review, we discuss the evolution and current trends in 3D printing applications among various areas of dentistry. We aim to focus on the process of the digital workflow used in the clinical diagnosis of different dental conditions and how they are transferred from laboratories to clinics. A brief outlook on the most recent manufacturing methods of 3D printed objects and their current and future implications are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it