Journal: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Article Title: Virtual reduction and 3D printing in the management of edentulous atrophic mandibular body fractures: case series and literature review

doi: 10.1007/s10006-025-01484-7

Figure Lengend Snippet: Patient no. 1. a . Anatomical model of the mandibular after virtual fracture reduction. b . Resulting mandibular model printed using a formlabs ® resin 3D printer and used to preoperatively pre-bend a stock load-bearing plate

Article Snippet: Resulting mandibular model printed using a formlabs ® resin 3D printer and used to preoperatively pre-bend a stock load-bearing plate 3D manufacturing: to transfer the plan information to the operating theatre the obtained anatomic mandible STL model was printed in our in-hospital 3D laboratory using FormLabs ® resin 3D printer. (Fig. b).

Techniques:

Journal: BMC Oral Health

Article Title: Mechanical and optical effects of post-curing time and device type in two 3D-printed resin systems

doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06813-6

Figure Lengend Snippet: 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED)

Article Snippet: Fig. 1 Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer Fig. 2 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) Fig. 3 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on DLP type 3d printer (Asiga MAX UV, Asiga, Australia) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) When the microhardness values were examined after the samples produced in 3D printers were polymerized in 10, 20, 40 and 60 min in blue LED and UV LED devices, a statistically significant difference was observed according to the polymerization time ( p < 0.05).

Techniques: Produced

Journal: BMC Oral Health

Article Title: Mechanical and optical effects of post-curing time and device type in two 3D-printed resin systems

doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06813-6

Figure Lengend Snippet: Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer

Article Snippet: Fig. 1 Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer Fig. 2 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) Fig. 3 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on DLP type 3d printer (Asiga MAX UV, Asiga, Australia) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) When the microhardness values were examined after the samples produced in 3D printers were polymerized in 10, 20, 40 and 60 min in blue LED and UV LED devices, a statistically significant difference was observed according to the polymerization time ( p < 0.05).

Techniques: Produced

Journal: BMC Oral Health

Article Title: Mechanical and optical effects of post-curing time and device type in two 3D-printed resin systems

doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06813-6

Figure Lengend Snippet: Initial and post thermal cycling microhardness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer

Article Snippet: Fig. 1 Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer Fig. 2 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) Fig. 3 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on DLP type 3d printer (Asiga MAX UV, Asiga, Australia) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) When the microhardness values were examined after the samples produced in 3D printers were polymerized in 10, 20, 40 and 60 min in blue LED and UV LED devices, a statistically significant difference was observed according to the polymerization time ( p < 0.05).

Techniques: Produced

Journal: BMC Oral Health

Article Title: Mechanical and optical effects of post-curing time and device type in two 3D-printed resin systems

doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06813-6

Figure Lengend Snippet: Color change (∆E 00 ) values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer

Article Snippet: Fig. 1 Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer Fig. 2 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) Fig. 3 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on DLP type 3d printer (Asiga MAX UV, Asiga, Australia) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) When the microhardness values were examined after the samples produced in 3D printers were polymerized in 10, 20, 40 and 60 min in blue LED and UV LED devices, a statistically significant difference was observed according to the polymerization time ( p < 0.05).

Techniques: Produced

Journal: BMC Oral Health

Article Title: Mechanical and optical effects of post-curing time and device type in two 3D-printed resin systems

doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06813-6

Figure Lengend Snippet: Whiteness index values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer

Article Snippet: Fig. 1 Initial and post thermal cycling surface roughness values of samples produced by applying different curing devices and post polymerization time in DLP and SLA type 3D printer Fig. 2 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on SLA type 3d printer (Formlab 3B+, Formlabs, USA) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) Fig. 3 3D surface profile analysis of samples produced on DLP type 3d printer (Asiga MAX UV, Asiga, Australia) (A: UV LED, B: Blue LED) When the microhardness values were examined after the samples produced in 3D printers were polymerized in 10, 20, 40 and 60 min in blue LED and UV LED devices, a statistically significant difference was observed according to the polymerization time ( p < 0.05).

Techniques: Produced