The Impact of Layer Thickness on Key Parameters Affecting 3D-Printed Dental Materials: A Systematic Review

Sandy Hazko¹, Louis Hardan^2,3, Naji Kharouf^4,5, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez^6*, Karim Corbani^2,7, Hani Tohme^3,8, Abigailt Flores-Ledesma⁹, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska¹⁰, Nicolas Nassar^3,11,12, Rim Bourgi^2,4,13*

¹Surgical Department, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, 30625 Hannover, Germany
²Department of Restorative, and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
³Department of Digital Dentistry, AI, and Evolving Technologies, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
⁴Department of Biomaterials, and Bioengineering, INSERM UMR_S 1121, University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France
⁵Department of Endodontics, and Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France
⁶Dental Materials Laboratory, Academic Area of Dentistry, Autonomous University of Hidalgo State, San Agustín Tlaxiaca 42160, Mexico
⁷Laser Unit, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
⁸Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
⁹Dental Materials, and Biomaterials Laboratory, Faculty of Stomatology, Meritorious Autonomous University of Puebla, Puebla 72000, Mexico
¹⁰Department of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 92-213 Lodz, Poland
¹¹Craniofacial Research Laboratory, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
¹²Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
¹³Department of Restorative Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut 115020, Lebanon

*Correspondence author:Rim Bourgi, Department of Biomaterials, and Bioengineering, INSERM UMR_S 1121, University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, and Lebanon, and Department of Restorative Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, 115020 Beirut, Lebanon, and Department of Restorative, and Esthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Citation: Hazko S, et al. The Impact of Layer Thickness on Key Parameters Affecting 3D-Printed Dental Materials: A Systematic Review. Jour Clin Med Res. 2025;6(3):1-21.

Copyright^© 2025 by Hazko S, et al. All rights reserved. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Table 1: Search strategy used.

Study Selection

Two independent reviewers (RB, and CECS) assessed titles, and abstracts based on these inclusion criteria: (1) In-vitro studies reporting the effect of layer thickness variation on the properties of 3D-printed dental materials; (2) Evaluated at least one outcome parameter; (3) Included a comparison between at least two different layer thicknesses; (4) Included quantitative data with mean, and standard deviation values; (5) Published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese.

Studies were excluded if they were case reports, case series, pilot studies, reviews,, or did not meet the specified inclusion criteria. Full-text articles were retrieved for studies that met the inclusion criteria, or if eligibility was unclear. Any discrepancies between reviewers were addressed through discussion, or consultation with a third reviewer (LH).

Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, including: Study, and year, Materials tested, Printer used, Layer thickness tested, Properties evaluated, and Main results.

Quality Assessment

The risk of bias in the selected studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for In-Vitro Studies (ROBDEMat) [22], which addresses four main domains: D1 – planning, and allocation, D2 – sample/specimen preparation, D3 – outcome assessment, and D4 – data analysis, and reporting.

Domain D1 includes three criteria: the use of an appropriate control, or reference group, randomization of specimens, and justification of the sample size.

Domains D2, D3, and D4 each involve two criteria. Specifically, D2 focuses on standardization of methodology, and experimental conditions; D3 considers reproducibility, and the presence of operator blinding; while D4 examines the adequacy of statistical analyses, and the clarity of outcome reporting.

Each criterion was scored as “sufficiently reported,” “insufficiently reported,” “not reported,”, or “not applicable.” Two reviewers (RB, and NN) conducted the assessment independently, and disagreements were resolved by discussion or, if necessary, with the input of a third reviewer (MLS) until consensus was achieved [22].

Results

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search across all databases initially identified 7,366 records. Following the removal of duplicates, 5,625 unique publications were retained for preliminary screening. After evaluating titles, and abstracts, 5,571 studies were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. This left 54 articles for full-text assessment. Of these, 17 were excluded because the full-text cannot be retrieved. A detailed overview of the selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart.

Main Findings

This systematic review synthesized data from various in-vitro studies investigating the effect of layer thickness on the properties of 3D-printed dental materials [5,20,31-65]. The included studies evaluated a range of materials, including denture base resins, interim crown/FPD resins, PLA, ABS, PETG, and stainless steel. Diverse 3D printers, such as Asiga, NextDent, Formlabs, SISMA, Zaxe, and Flashforge, were utilized across the studies.

Although these studies were performed in-vitro, their findings carry important clinical implications. Variations in printing layer thickness were shown to influence mechanical strength, dimensional accuracy, and surface quality, which are critical for the long-term success of dental restorations. For example, in interim crowns, and fixed partial dentures, optimal layer thickness can improve marginal fit, and resistance to fracture, while in denture bases, it may enhance adaptation, and patient comfort. Simi-larly, in orthodontic, or surgical applications, accuracy related to layer thickness directly impacts treatment precision. These outcomes highlight the translational value of in-vitro results to clinical scenarios, where material properties strongly determine restoration performance, esthetics, and patient satisfaction.

The assessed layer thicknesses varied significantly, ranging from 20 µm to 2 mm, with common thicknesses including 25, 50, and 100 µm. The properties evaluated were extensive, covering mechanical strength (e.g., flexural, tensile, compressive strength, hardness, fracture resistance, wear resistance), dimensional accuracy (trueness, precision, marginal/internal gap), surface characteristics (roughness, wettability), optical properties (color stability, translucency, scattering, absorption), and degree of conversion.

Key findings demonstrated that layer thickness plays a crucial role in determining the properties of 3D-printed dental materials. Thinner layers (25-50 µm) were frequently associated with greater flexural strength, and hardness in denture base resins. In contrast, certain materials exhibited superior mechanical performance at thicker settings, such as 0.64 mm for CF/PLA composites, and 0.7 mm for shape memory resin flexural strength. Surface roughness typically decreased with thinner layers, contributing to smoother finishes. Dimensional accuracy, and marginal fit yielded mixed results: while some studies identified 50 µm as optimal for adaptation, others reported that 100 µm enhanced trueness, and precision. Optical outcomes, including color stability, and translucency, were also influenced by layer thickness, often showing improvement with thinner layers. Furthermore, the degree of conversion was affected not only by the printing layer thickness but also by the post-curing protocol employed. Overall, the studies highlight the critical role of layer thickness, often alongside other printing parameters like build angle, in determining the final performance of 3D-printed dental materials (Table 2).

Table 2: Characteristics of the studies included in the review.

Risk of Bias

The risk of bias assessment revealed that most studies exhibited unclear, or high risk in planning, and allocation due to insufficient reporting, while outcome assessment, and data reporting domains demonstrated a consistently high risk of bias, highlighting concerns regarding the validity, and reliability of the reported results (Table 3).

Table 3: Quality analysis of studies included in the systematic review, separated by their risk of bias in different domains. R – sufficiently reported/adequate; NR – not reported; IR – insufficiently reported;, and NA – not applicable.

Bias sources within each domain: 1.1 – use of control group; 1.2 – sample randomization; 1.3 – justification of sample size; 2.1 – standardization of materials/samples; 2.2 – uniformity of experimental conditions; 3.1 – consistency in testing procedures/outcomes; 3.2 – blinding of the operator; 4.1 – statistical evaluation; 4.2 – reporting of results.

Discussion

3D printing software allows control over the thickness of each printed layer, commonly referred to as layer height, or print resolution. This layer thickness significantly affects both the number of layers required to build the object, and the total printing time. Typically, layer heights can vary from about 20 to 175 micrometers (µm), or more. Smaller layer heights result in more layers, which can enhance the level of detail, and create smoother surfaces. However, this also means longer print durations. It is important to balance these benefits against potential drawbacks: with each additional layer, there is an increased chance of curing errors that may lead to distortions, or even print failures. Therefore, optimizing layer thickness is crucial to achieving a balance between print quality, and efficiency [5,14].

The present systematic review underscores the significant influence of printing layer thickness on the performance characteristics of 3D-printed dental materials. As additive manufacturing becomes increasingly integral to prosthetic dentistry, understanding how layer thickness affects mechanical strength, dimensional accuracy, surface properties, optical characteristics, and polymerization is crucial to optimizing clinical outcomes [15-25].

Dimensional Accuracy, and Marginal Fit

Dimensional accuracy, and marginal adaptation are critical factors for the clinical success of fixed prostheses, as they influence fit, longevity, and biological compatibility. Research shows that the optimal layer thickness for these properties varies across studies. While some investigations indicate that thinner layers (~50 µm) improve trueness, and marginal fit by enabling finer details, and smoother surface transitions, other studies report that 100 µm layers can achieve comparable, or even superior outcomes, depending on the printer resolution, and resin type [13,16,23,24]. This inconsistency is likely due to differences in printer calibration, resin viscosity, build orientation, and post-processing protocols [11,13]. For instance, build angle interacts with layer thickness to influence polymerization shrinkage, and dimensional distortion, factors critical for precise fit [27]. Additionally, thicker layers may reduce cumulative errors by decreasing the number of layers, consequently, the interlayer bonding interfaces that can cause distortion. Song, et al., found that increased layer thickness shortened printing time but sometimes at the cost of surface detail, highlighting the trade-offs involved [19].

Degree of Conversion, and Post-Processing

The degree of conversion (DC) of resin monomers to polymers directly impacts mechanical durability, and biocompatibility. Reymus, et al., demonstrated that thinner layers generally achieve higher DC due to better light penetration, and reduced attenuation in each layer, improving polymer network formation [20]. However, post-curing protocols light intensity, time, and temperature-also critically influence DC, sometimes overriding the effects of layer thickness [5,20]. Clinicians should, therefore, carefully calibrate post-processing to complement printing parameters for optimal material performance.

Mechanical Properties

A consistent finding across multiple studies is that thinner layers, generally between 25, and 50 µm, tend to enhance the mechanical strength of dental resins [18,21-23]. Increased flexural strength, and hardness at these finer layer settings are commonly reported for denture base resins, and interim crowns [5,18]. The improved mechanical properties can be attributed to more effective layer-to-layer bonding, and a higher degree of polymer conversion, which decreases internal porosity, and micro-defects that serve as stress concentrators [20]. This effect aligns with foundational additive manufacturing principles where thinner layers yield more homogenous, and tightly bound printed structures [2].

However, this relationship is not consistently linear. Certain composite materials, including CF/PLA, and shape memory resins, exhibit optimal mechanical properties at relatively thicker layers (approximately 0.6-0.7 mm), indicating that material composi-tion, and resin chemistry influence how layer thickness affects strength [22,19]. These observations suggest that mechanical performance is determined by the interplay between layer thickness, resin formulation, and the specific 3D printing technology used. Hence, material-specific optimization protocols are needed rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Surface Roughness, and Microbial Adhesion

Surface quality affects esthetic outcomes, and biological responses such as plaque accumulation, and secondary caries risk [21]. Thinner layers produce smoother surfaces due to the finer step increments in each printed layer, reducing microscopic ridges, and valleys where bacteria can adhere [25,9]. Moreover, surface roughness influences patient comfort, and staining susceptibility, making it a crucial parameter in material selection, and printing settings [39,54,58].

Optical Properties, and Esthetics

Esthetics remains a central consideration in prosthetic dentistry, with optical properties such as translucency, color stability, and surface gloss playing key roles. The review findings suggest that thinner printing layers enhance optical uniformity by minimizing light scattering, and creating smoother surfaces, resulting in more natural-looking restorations [21]. These effects are particularly important for anterior restorations, where seamless integration with the surrounding dentition is critical. Nev-ertheless, post-curing protocols, and resin pigmentation also impact final esthetic outcomes, interacting with layer thickness in complex ways [26].

Limitations

This review has several limitations. The included studies were highly heterogeneous in printer types, materials, layer thicknesses, testing protocols, and post-processing methods, limiting generalizability. Moreover, the predominance of in-vitro studies restricts direct clinical translation, as factors such as saliva, masticatory forces, and thermal cycling were not fully simulated. Finally, publication bias may exist, as studies with significant findings tend to be reported more frequently. Future clinical studies, and standardized testing protocols are needed to validate the laboratory findings, and optimize printing parameters for clinical use.

Future Directions

Given the rapidly evolving nature of 3D printing technology, and materials, further standardized research is essential to develop comprehensive guidelines. Future studies should employ consistent testing methodologies, including standardized specimen designs, post-processing protocols, and clinically relevant aging simulations. Additionally, in vivo studies evaluating the long-term clinical performance of 3D-printed restorations fabricated with varying layer thicknesses are necessary to translate in-vitro findings into practice.

Trade-offs, and Clinical Implications

Despite the advantages of thinner layers in accuracy, strength, and esthetics, thicker layers offer practical benefits including faster print times, and reduced material consumption, which are important in busy dental laboratories, and clinics [2,3]. These trade-offs must be balanced according to the clinical situation, with provisional restorations potentially favoring speed over optimal detail, while definitive prostheses may prioritize mechanical, and esthetic excellence. Furthermore, layer thickness does not act in isolation, but is interdependent with build orientation, printer type (SLA, DLP, LCD), resin composition, and environmental factors. This complexity demands an integrated approach to protocol development, incorporating manufacture specifications, and empirical data to tailor printing parameters for each application [27].

Conclusion

Layer thickness critically affects the mechanical, dimensional, and surface properties of 3D-printed dental materials. Thinner layers generally improve surface smoothness, and certain mechanical properties, while thicker layers may reduce printing time, and occasionally enhance strength depending on the material. Optimal outcomes require balancing layer thickness with other printing parameters, such as build angle, and post-curing. Although in-vitro evidence is promising, further clinical studies are needed to validate these findings, and establish standardized guidelines for layer thickness selection.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

None.

Acknowledgment

None.

Author’s Contribution

All authors read, and approved the final manuscript.

References

1. Witkowski S. CAD/CAM in dental technology. Quintessence Dent Technol. 2005;28:169-84.
2. Revilla-León M, Özcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: Current status, and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:146-58.
3. Jawahar A, Maragathavalli G. Applications of 3D printing in dentistry-a review. J Pharm Sci Res. 2019;11:1670-5.
4. Konidena A. 3D printing: Future of dentistry? J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2016;28:109-10.
5. Alshamrani AA, Raju R, Ellakwa A. Effect of printing layer thickness, and postprinting conditions on the flexural strength, and hardness of a 3D-printed resin. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:8353137.
6. Liu Q, Leu MC, Schmitt SM. Rapid prototyping in dentistry: Technology, and application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006;29:317-35.
7. Barazanchi A, Li KC, Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Waddell JN. Additive technology: Update on current materials, and applications in dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:156-63
8. Turkyilmaz I, Wilkins GN. 3D printing in dentistry-exploring the new horizons. J Dent Sci. 2021;16:1037-8.
9. Shim JS, Kim JE, Jeong SH, Choi YJ, Ryu JJ. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:468-75.
10. Simoneti DM, Pereira-Cenci T, Dos Santos MBF. Comparison of material properties, and biofilm formation in interim single crowns obtained by 3D printing, and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2020.
11. Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:760-7.
12. Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:503-10.
13. Yoo SY, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim JG. Dimensional accuracy of dental models for three-unit prostheses fabricated by various 3D printing technologies. Materials. 2021;14:1550.
14. Ajayi OK, Du S, Odemokoya TA, Bayonle O. Influence of printing speed, layer thickness, and infill percentage on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PLA filament for prototyping. Niger J Technol Dev. 2025;22(3):1-2.
15. Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK. Effect of print layer height, and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152:557-65.
16. Ko J, Bloomstein RD, Briss D, Holland JN, Morsy HM, Kasper FK, Huang W. Effect of build angle, and layer height on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160:451-8.
17. Yuan J, Tian J, Chen C, Chen G. Experimental investigation of color reproduction quality of color 3D printing based on colored layer features. Molecules. 2020;25:2909.
18. ElShebiny T, Matthaios S, Menezes LM, Tsolakis IA, Palomo JM. Effect of printing technology, layer height, and orientation on assessment of 3D-printed models. J World Fed Orthod. 2024;13:169-74.
19. Song S, Zhang J, Liu M, Li F, Bai S. Effect of build orientation, and layer thickness on manufacturing accuracy, printing time, and material consumption of 3D printed complete denture bases. J Dent. 2023;130:104435.
20. Reymus M, Lümkemann N, Stawarczyk B. 3D-printed material for temporary restorations: Impact of print layer thickness, and post-curing method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22:231-7.
21. Lee EH, Ahn JS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB, Kim MJ. Effect of layer thickness, and printing orientation on the color stability, and stainability of a 3D-printed resin material. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127:784.e1-6.
22. Borella PS, Alvares LA, Ribeiro MT, Moura GF, Soares CJ, Zancopé K, Mendonça G, Rodrigues FP, das Neves FD. Physical, and mechanical properties of four 3D-printed resins at two different thick layers: An in-vitro comparative study. Dent Mater. 2023;39:686-92.
23. Jang G, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY. Fit analysis of stereolithography-manufactured three-unit resin prosthesis with different 3D-printing layer thicknesses. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131:301-12.
24. Loflin WA, English JD, Borders C, Harris LM, Moon A, Holland JN, Kasper FK. Effect of print layer height on the assessment of 3D-printed models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2019;156:283-9.
25. Lee WJ, Jo YH, Yilmaz B, Yoon HI. Effect of build angle, resin layer thickness, and viscosity on the surface properties, and microbial adhesion of denture bases manufactured using digital light processing. J Dent. 2023;137:104608.
26. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL, Bertassoni LE. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown, and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater. 2018;34:192-200.
27. Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:182-8.
28. Li SY, Zhou M, Lai YX, Geng YM, Cao SS, Chen XM. Biological evaluation of three-dimensional printed co-poly lactic acid/glycolic acid/tri-calcium phosphate scaffold for bone reconstruction. Chin J Stomatol. 2016;51:661-6.
29. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital, and conventional impression techniques, and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1759-64.
30. Donovan TE. Factors essential for successful all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139 Suppl:S14-8.
31. AlRumaih HS, Gad MM. The effect of 3D printing layer thickness, and post-polymerization time on the flexural strength, and hardness of denture base resins. Prosthesis. 2024;6:970-8.
32. Ayrilmis N. Effect of layer thickness on surface properties of 3D printed materials produced from wood flour/PLA filament. Polym Test. 2018;71:163-6.
33. Vinoth Babu N, Venkateshwaran N, Rajini N, Ismail SO, Mohammad F, Al-Lohedan HA, Suchart S. Influence of slicing parameters on surface quality, and mechanical properties of 3D-printed CF/PLA composites fabricated by FDM technique. Mater Technol. 2022;37:1008-25.
34. Bakardzhiev V, Sabev S, Kasabov P. Research on the impact of extrusion temperature, printing speed, and layer thickness in 3D printing using material deposition technology. AIP Conf Proc. 2024;2980:060004.
35. Çakmak G, Cuellar AR, Donmez MB, Abou-Ayash S, Lu WE, Schimmel M, Yilmaz B. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness of 3-unit interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131:718-25.
36. Çakmak G, Cuellar AR, Donmez MB, Schimmel M, Abou-Ayash S, Lu WE, Yilmaz B. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness, and margin quality of 3D-printed interim dental crowns. Appl Sci. 2021;11:9246.
37. Corbani K, Hardan L, Skienhe H, Özcan M, Alharbi N, Salameh Z. Effect of material thickness on the fracture resistance, and failure pattern of 3D-printed composite crowns. Int J Comput Dent. 2020;23:225-33.
38. Cremonini F, Cappelletti M, Brucculeri L, Olivero V, Lombardo L. An in-vitro comparison study regarding retention force expressed by thermoformed aligners, and 3D-printed aligners with different thickness, and design. Appl Sci. 2025;15:1345.
39. de Gois Moreira FG, Bezerra MG, de Miranda LM, da Silva SE, de Andrade Dantas EL, de Sousa FB, Özcan M, e Souza RO. Influence of build angle, printing layer thickness, and aging on the flexural strength, precision, roughness, and porosity analysis of a printed resin for provisional restorations. Odontology. 2025;113:1-5.
40. Türksayar AA, Diker B. Effect of layer thickness, and polishing on wear resistance of additively manufactured occlusal splints. J Dent. 2024;146:105101.
41. Espinar C, Della Bona A, Tejada-Casado M, Pulgar R, Perez MM. Optical behavior of 3D-printed dental restorative resins: Influence of thickness, and printing angle. Dent Mater. 2023;39:894-902.
42. Farkas AZ, Galatanu SV, Nagib R. The influence of printing layer thickness, and orientation on the mechanical properties of DLP 3D-printed dental resin. Polymers. 2023;15:1113.
43. Farzadi A, Solati-Hashjin M, Asadi-Eydivand M, Abu Osman NA. Effect of layer thickness, and printing orientation on mechanical properties, and dimensional accuracy of 3D printed porous samples for bone tissue engineering. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108252.
44. Fouda S, Ji W, Gad MM, AlGhamdi MA, Rohr N. Flexural strength, and surface properties of 3D-printed denture base resins-effect of build angle, layer thickness, and aging. Materials. 2025;18:913.
45. Gad MM, Alzaki FA, Abuwarwar FA, Alhammad A, Al Hussain M, Khan SQ, Nassar EA, Ayad NM. Impact of printing layer thickness on the flexural strength of nanocomposite 3D printed resins: An in-vitro comparative study. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36:1307-12.
46. García-Gil I, Rodríguez Alonso V, Tobar Arribas C, Mosaddad SA, Peláez J, Suárez MJ. Dental casts for fixed dental prostheses printed with SLA technology: Influence of external shell thickness, and printing orientation. Materials. 2025;18:2246.
47. Grymak A, Badarneh A, Ma S, Choi JJ. Effect of various printing parameters on the accuracy (trueness, and precision) of 3D-printed partial denture framework. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2023;140:105688.
48. Hasanzade M, Yaghoobi N, Nematollahi P, Ghazanfari R. Comparison of the marginal, and internal fit of PMMA interim crowns printed with different layer thicknesses in 3D-printing technique. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(5):832-9.
49. Iyibilgin O. Investigation of the effect of layer thickness on the mechanical properties of 316L austenitic stainless steel in additive manufacturing with metal filament. Appl Sci. 2025;15:2584.
50. Khalil AS, Zaher AR. Effect of printing orientation, and resin thickness on flexural strength of direct 3D-printed aligners. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25:238.
51. Kul E, Ostovar S, Kahraman S, Yanıkoğlu N, Yeşildal F. The effect of post-polymerization methods, and varying thicknesses on colour stability, and flexural strength of denture base polymers produced with stereolithography (SLA) technique. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25:488.
52. Li P, Fernandez PK, Spintzyk S. Effects of layer thickness, and build angle on the microbial adhesion of denture base polymers manufactured by digital light processing. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67:562-7.
53. Liu Y, Bai W, Cheng X, Tian J, Wei D, Sun Y, Di P. Effects of printing layer thickness on mechanical properties of 3D-printed custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(5):671.e1.
54. Mahajan S, Gopan G, Bhatawadekar SD, Khalikar S, Mahale K, Rajguru V. Effect of printing layer thickness on the color stability, and surface roughness of three-dimensional printed resin material immersed in different aging media: An in-vitro Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2025;15(1):36-40.
55. Mushtaq RT, Iqbal A, Wang Y, Rehman M, Petra MI. Investigation, and optimization of effects of 3D printer process parameters on performance parameters. Materials. 2023;16(9):3392.
56. Park SY, Choi SH, Yu HS, Kim SJ, Kim H, Kim KB, Cha JY. Comparison of translucency, thickness, and gap width of thermoformed, and 3D-printed clear aligners using micro-CT, and spectrophotometer. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):10921.
57. Reymus M, Lümkemann N, Stawarczyk B. 3D-printed material for temporary restorations: Impact of print layer thickness, and post-curing method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(3):231-7.
58. Sasany R, Jamjoon FZ, Kendirci MY, Yilmaz B. Effect of printing layer thickness on optical properties, and surface roughness of 3D-printed resins: An in-vitro Int J Prosthodont. 2024;37(7):165-73.
59. Shergill K, Chen Y, Bull S. What controls layer thickness effects on the mechanical properties of additive manufactured polymers. Surf Coat Technol. 2023;475:130131.
60. Sousa AM, Pinho AC, Piedade AP. Mechanical properties of 3D printed mouthguards: Influence of layer height, and device thickness. Mater Des. 2021;203:109624.
61. Wu C, Mangal U, Bai N, Kim H, Hwang G, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Kwon JS, Choi SH. Effects of printing layer thickness, and build orientation on the mechanical properties, and color stability of 3D-printed clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2025;95:355-61.
62. Yang MS, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Park JM. Investigation of the marginal fit of a 3D-printed three-unit resin prosthesis with different build orientations, and layer thicknesses. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14:250-7.
63. Yilmaz B, Donmez MB, Kahveci Ç, Cuellar AR, de Paula MS, Schimmel M, Abou-Ayash S, Çakmak G. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness, and fit of additively manufactured removable dies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:1318.e1.
64. Yılmaz D, Sabatini GP, Kahveci Ç, Yoon HI, Yilmaz B, Çakmak G, Dönmez MB. Effect of material thickness, and coffee thermocycling on the color stability, and translucency of additively, and subtractively manufactured resin-based materials for definitive restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2024;37:143-50.
65. You SM, You SG, Kang SY, Bae SY, Kim JH. Evaluation of the accuracy (trueness, and precision) of a maxillary trial denture according to the layer thickness: An in-vitro J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:139-45.
66. Zhang ZC, Li PL, Chu FT, Shen G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique, and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. J Orofac Orthop. 2019;80:194-204.