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.

Accuracy of different tooth surfaces on 3D printed dental models: orthodontic perspective

Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Models of Different Tooth Surfaces

Evaluation of current additive manufacturing systems for orthodontic 3-dimensional printing

Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions

Accuracy evaluation of 3D-printed dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners in mild malocclusions

Spatial Trueness Evaluation of 3D-Printed Dental Model Made of Photopolymer Resin: Use of Special Structurized Dental Model

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

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

Evaluation of accuracy and reproducibility of 3D digital dental models with laser scanning

Accuracy of 3D printing Versus Milling in Fabrication of Clear Aligners Dental Models

Precision of 3D-Printed Splints with Different Dental Model Offsets

Accuracy of 3-Dimensionally Printed Full-Arch Dental Models: A Systematic Review

Accuracy of five different 3D printing workflows for dental models comparing industrial and dental desktop printers

Effect of Model Body Type and Print Angle on the Accuracy of 3D-Printed Orthodontic Models

[Fabrication and Accuracy Research on 3D Printing Dental Model Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Digital Modeling].

[A two-dimensional photographic and three-dimensional digital dental model comparative analysis in maxillary anterior teeth]

Effect of Build Angle and Layer Height on the Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Printed Dental Models.

Precision of Three-Dimensional Printed Brackets

Accuracy of full arch three-dimensional dentition models from intraoral scanners

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

[3D printing personalized implant manufactured via fused deposition modeling: an accuracy research].