Abstract:Purpose The objective was to determine the accuracy of 3D‐printed dental models subjected to different storage conditions using six different material and printer combinations. Materials and Methods Three completely dentate models were designed using dental CAD software (3Shape Dental System). A horseshoe‐shaped solid base with a posterior horizontal bar was used. The models were printed in a horizontal direction against the building platform without support. The models were printed using six printers with the corresponding recommended resin material: Carbon M2 (DPR10), HeyGears A2D4K (Model HP UV2.0), Stratasys J5 (MED610), Stratasys Origin One (DM200), Envision One (E‐Model LightDLP), and Asiga Pro4K (VeriModel) with a standard layer thickness of 50 μm. All printed models underwent scanning using a laboratory scanner (Sirona inEOS X5) after printing. Subsequently, the models were randomly assigned into three groups of storage conditions, LT: cold environment (4 ± 1°C), HT: hot and dry environment (50 ± 2°C), and RT: room temperature (25 ± 2°C) serving as the control. Each group was kept under the designated condition and was scanned at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks. The total number of models (N) was 72, with 6 printers producing 12 models per printer for 3 storage conditions, resulting in 4 models for each storage condition and each printer. The generated STL files were imported into a 3D inspection software for comparison with the original STL files. In‐tolerance percentage, the deviation RMS, trueness, and precision were obtained and analyzed with least square mean linear regression using JMP Pro 15 to identify the significant effects (α = 0.05). Results The in‐tolerance percentage as‐printed was significantly different among different printers. Significant dimension deviations were observed after the first week of storage at HT and with subsequent weeks of storage. RT and LT did not show significant dimensional changes. Models printed with Carbon M2 showed the highest in‐tolerance percentages compared to the other printers. Conclusions The model deviations were affected by storage conditions and the printer used, with high‐temperature storage showed least stability compared to low and room temperatures. No significant difference was observed between low and room temperature storage conditions. The Carbon M2 printer showed the highest accuracy among all printers tested. The region had a significant effect on the deviation measured, with the abutment body showing the least deviation. Among the 3D printers evaluated, A2D4K by HeyGears and Carbon M2 printers demonstrated the highest accuracy in terms of both precision and trueness.

3D‐printed zirconia orthodontic brackets: Effect of printing method on dimensional accuracy

Accuracy and Margin Quality of Advanced 3D-Printed Monolithic Zirconia Crowns.

Digital measurement method for comparing the absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated using conventional and digital technologies

Precision of Three-Dimensional Printed Brackets

Influence of additive manufacturing method and build angle on the accuracy of 3D-printed palatal plates

Optimization of three-dimensional printing parameters for orthodontic applications

Influence of 3D printed surface micro-structures on molding performance and dental bonding properties of zirconia

Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Models for Three-Unit Prostheses Fabricated by Various 3D Printing Technologies

Accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3D printed orthodontic models finalized to clear aligners production, testing crowded and spaced dentition

Accuracy, fit, and marginal quality of advanced additively manufactured and milled zirconia 3-unit fixed dental prostheses

Evaluation of Accuracy of Different Print Angulations for 3D Printed Dental Crowns

Effect of printing technology and orientation on the accuracy of three-dimensional printed retainers

3D-printed versus conventionally milled zirconia for dental clinical applications: Trueness, precision, accuracy, biological and esthetic aspects.

A scanning electron microscopy investigation of the precision of three orthodontic bracket slot systems

Comparison of the accuracy of two techniques for three-dimensional digital indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A randomized controlled trial

Accuracy of additively manufactured zirconia four-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated by stereolithography, digital light processing and material jetting compared with subtractive manufacturing

Trueness and precision of digital light processing fabricated 3D printed monolithic zirconia crowns

Effect of different storage conditions on dimensional accuracy of 3D‐printed dental models

Assessment of the trueness of additively manufactured mol3% zirconia crowns at different printing orientations with an industrial and desktop 3D printer compared to subtractive manufacturing.

Build angle effect on 3D-printed dental crowns marginal fit using digital light-processing and stereo-lithography technology: an in vitro study

Zirconia crowns manufactured using digital light processing: Effects of printing angle and layer thickness on the accuracy