Radiopaque dental phantom models peer reviewed research
Radiopaque dental phantom models for CBCT and digital-registration research.
3Dresyns OD UHR and 3D-ADD ROC1 are used to 3D-print the radiopaque phantom; the registration and imaging metrics belong to the scanner, software and study design.
Evidence in numbers
What this page covers
3Dresyn OD UHR is a high-rigidity dental model photopolymer for SLA, DLP and LCD printing; 3D-ADD ROC1 is a radio-opaque concentrate additive. Two peer-reviewed in-vitro studies used them together to 3D-print radiopaque maxillary phantom models, so that cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration could be tested against realistic restoration artifact.
Both materials are named in the Materials and Methods section of each paper. OD UHR is the model resin (and the resin crowns used to simulate unrestored teeth); ROC1 is the additive mixed into the resin to give the model the radiopacity of dentine on CBCT.
The reported metrics, that is registration error, the metal-artifact-reduction (MAR) effect and the fiducial-versus-markerless comparison, are properties of the phantom workflow, the scanner and protocol, the registration software and the study design. They are not neat-resin specifications, and they are not clinical performance claims. The studies are attributed to their authors, not presented as first-party claims by 3Dresyns.
What peer-reviewed research reported
Does metal artifact reduction improve CBCT-to-intraoral registration?
A 2024 study in the Journal of Prosthodontics (Biun, Dudhia, Arora, University of Queensland) built a maxillary study model to test whether a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm improves the trueness of registering a CBCT scan with an intraoral scan when severe zirconia-crown artifact is present. In the Methods, a radiopaque additive (3D-ADD ROC1, Resyner Technologies, Barcelona) was added to the stereolithographic resin (3Dresyn OD UHR, Resyner Technologies, Barcelona) at a concentration of 5.6%, chosen to simulate the radiopacity of dentine. The model was printed on a Form 2 (Formlabs), fitted with 12 milled zirconia crowns, and the second molars were printed in the same OD UHR resin to simulate unrestored teeth.
CBCT volumes were acquired on an OP300 Maxio (0.2 mm voxel) with and without MAR, and registration was performed in coDiagnostiX 10.6 by point-based registration with surface-based refinement. The authors reported an average registration error of 0.478 mm with MAR off and 0.519 mm with MAR on, so activating MAR was associated with a 0.041 mm increase in average error (p < 0.001), while the maximum-error difference was not statistically significant. They concluded that clinicians should not rely on a MAR algorithm for this registration step.
The MAR finding is a property of the registration workflow, the OP300 Maxio scanner and the coDiagnostiX software, not of OD UHR or ROC1. The role of the 3Dresyns materials is to manufacture the radiopaque phantom that made the comparison possible.
Fiducial-marker versus markerless registration under zirconia artifact
A 2023 study in Clinical Oral Implants Research (Biun, Dudhia, Arora, University of Queensland) compared fiducial-marker-based registration with markerless registration as the number of highly radiopaque zirconia crowns increased. In the Methods, a full maxillary study model was 3D-printed by stereolithography (Form 2, Formlabs) using resin (3Dresyn OD UHR, Resyner Technologies) mixed with a radiopaquing agent (3D-ADD ROC1, Resyner Technologies) to simulate the radiopacity of dentine; the percentage is not stated in this paper (the 5.6% loading is reported in the related 2024 study). Resin crowns in the same OD UHR resin were used for unrestored teeth, with up to 14 milled zirconia crowns added in eight configurations.
For a full arch of crowns, the regression model predicted average and maximum registration errors of 0.581 and 0.697 mm for the markerless technique, versus 0.185 and 0.210 mm for the fiducial-marker technique. Markerless error rose with each additional crown, while the fiducial technique was not significantly affected; the two techniques were predicted to be equal at roughly three to four crowns, with the fiducial technique more accurate at four or more highly radiopaque full-coverage restorations.
The registration results are properties of the fiducial-marker strategy, the i-CAT FLX scanner, the coDiagnostiX software and the study design, not of OD UHR or ROC1. The 3Dresyns materials provide the radiopaque phantom and its dentine-like CBCT contrast.
Which component does what
Separating the materials from the measurement
| Element | What it is | Role in the studies |
|---|---|---|
| 3Dresyn OD UHR | High-rigidity dental model photopolymer (SLA / DLP / LCD) | Printed the maxillary study model and the resin crowns used to simulate unrestored teeth |
| 3D-ADD ROC1 | Radio-opaque concentrate additive | Mixed into OD UHR to give the model dentine-like radiopacity on CBCT; reported at 5.6% in the 2024 study only, percentage not stated in the 2023 study |
| Zirconia crowns | Milled monolithic zirconia (third-party) | Source of the severe metal artifact that the studies were designed to challenge |
| Scanner, software, protocol | OP300 Maxio and i-CAT FLX CBCT; Trios 3 intraoral scanner; coDiagnostiX 10.6 | Produce the registration, MAR and trueness metrics reported by the authors |
Mobile: scroll horizontally to view all columns; the first column stays visible. The 3Dresyns materials manufacture the phantom; the measured accuracy belongs to the scanning and registration workflow.
Evidence at a glance
What each study used and reported
| Study | Materials (named in Methods) | Role | Workflow | Reported result | Firewall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Prosthodontics (Wiley) 2024 | OD UHR + 3D-ADD ROC1 (5.6%) | Printed radiopaque maxillary phantom and resin crowns | OP300 Maxio CBCT (0.2 mm voxel), MAR on/off, coDiagnostiX 10.6, 12 zirconia crowns | Average registration error 0.478 mm (MAR off) vs 0.519 mm (MAR on); MAR on +0.041 mm, p < 0.001; advise not to rely on MAR | MAR and registration metrics belong to the scanner, software and study design, not to OD UHR or ROC1 |
| Clinical Oral Implants Research (Wiley) 2023 | OD UHR + 3D-ADD ROC1 (percentage not stated) | Printed radiopaque maxillary phantom and resin crowns | i-CAT FLX CBCT (0.2 mm voxel), fiducial vs markerless, coDiagnostiX 10.6, up to 14 zirconia crowns | Full-arch predicted error markerless 0.581 / 0.697 mm vs fiducial 0.185 / 0.210 mm (avg / max); fiducial superior at four or more crowns | Registration outcomes belong to the fiducial strategy, scanner, software and design, not to OD UHR or ROC1 |
Mobile: scroll horizontally to view all columns; the first column stays visible. Results are reported by the study authors for their specific in-vitro models and protocols, and are not first-party performance claims by 3Dresyns.
Research scope and regulatory note
In-vitro phantom research, not clinical performance
Both studies are in-vitro, based on a single maxillary model with registration performed by a single operator, and the authors note that clinical errors are likely to be larger. The page reports what the authors measured; it does not claim that any 3Dresyns material improves CBCT accuracy or clinical outcomes.
OD UHR and 3D-ADD ROC1 are used to manufacture radiographic phantom models. The reported CBCT, registration, MAR and imaging metrics belong to the phantom workflow, scanner and protocol, software registration method and study design, not to neat-resin specifications or clinical performance claims. These are in-vitro research findings published by the authors, not first-party performance claims by 3Dresyns.
3Dresyns dental materials and additives are supplied as professional manufacturing materials and are not marketed here as finished medical devices. The regulatory classification, conformity assessment, validated workflow and final clinical use of any dental appliance, model, guide, phantom or device manufactured with these materials remain the responsibility of the legal manufacturer under applicable regulations, including Regulation (EU) 2017/745.
Related 3Dresyns materials & resources
The phantom material system and where to find it
The two materials named in the Methods of both studies, plus the broader radio-opaque and dental ranges and the evidence hub.
More 3Dresyns evidence
Browse the full catalogue of peer-reviewed publications, market analyses and reviews whose Methods identify 3Dresyns materials.