Dimensional Accuracy of Additively Manufactured Dental Models Compared with Conventional Gypsum Casts Across Different Measurement Spans: An In Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/p4ma1007Keywords:
Models, Dental; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Materials; Prosthodontics.Abstract
Accurate dental models are critical for achieving predictable outcomes in prosthodontics; however, the transition from conventional to digital workflows raises concerns regarding dimensional reliability across different clinical scenarios. This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of conventional gypsum casts and additively manufactured dental models using standardized linear measurements derived from a metal master reference model, with particular emphasis on span-dependent behavior. Twenty definitive models were divided into 2 groups (n=10): gypsum casts obtained from addition silicone impressions and resin models fabricated through intraoral scanning followed by LCD-based 3-dimensional printing. Ten predefined linear distances were measured using a digital Vernier caliper (±0.01 mm), and deviations were calculated relative to the reference model. Statistical analysis included Shapiro–Wilk testing and independent t tests or Mann–Whitney U tests (α=.05). Gypsum casts demonstrated significantly smaller deviations in localized measurements (0.05-0.12 mm) compared with additively manufactured models (0.22-0.44 mm) (P< .05). For inter-point distances, both workflows showed comparable performance in selected spans, whereas differences became evident in longer transverse measurements. No significant differences were observed in diagonal dimensions. Dimensional discrepancies were not uniformly distributed, indicating that measurement span influences accuracy outcomes. Within the limitations of this study, gypsum casts remain more precise for short-span measurements, while additively manufactured models provide comparable accuracy over broader distances. Both workflows produced deviations within clinically acceptable ranges, supporting the use of additively manufactured models as a reliable alternative in digital prosthodontic workflows, particularly when full-arch spatial relationships are prioritized.
Downloads
References
Güth J.F., Runkel C., Beuer F., Stimmelmayr M., Edelhoff D., Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 1445-55.
Mangano F., Gandolfi A., Luongo G., Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149.
Ender A., Attin T., Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 313-20.
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.
Abduo J., Rasaie V. Digital workflows in prosthodontics. Aust Dent J. 2025; 70 (Suppl 1): S146-58.
Papaspyridakos P., Gallucci G.O., Chen C.J., Hanssen S., Naert I., Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 465-72.
Clarkson P., Heenan R., Liu X., Cameron A.B., Newsham-West K., Aarts J.M., et al. Mechanical and adhesive properties of additively manufactured dental tray materials with variable sustainability profiles. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2025; 170: 107115.
Jin S., Kim D., Kim J., Kim W. Accuracy of dental replica models using photopolymer materials in additive manufacturing: In vitro three-dimensional evaluation. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 389-96.
Tahayeri A., Morgan M., Fugolin A.P., Bompolaki D., Athirasala A., Pfeifer C.S., et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 192-200.
Khaw S., Liu X., Cameron A., Aarts J., Choi J.J.E. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured dental models: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2023; 146: 106057.
Ko J., Bloomstein R.D., Briss D., Holland J.N., Morsy H.M., Kasper F.K., et al. Effect of build angle and layer height on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021; 160: 451-58.e2.
Perlea P., Stefanescu C., Dalaban M.G., Petre A.E. Experimental study on dimensional variations of 3D printed dental models based on printing orientation. Clin Case Rep. 2024; 12: e8630.
Rubayo D.D., Phasuk K., Vickery J.M., Morton D., Lin W.S. Influences of build angle on the accuracy, printing time, and material consumption of additively manufactured surgical templates. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 658-63.
Sherman S.L., Kadioglu O., Currier G.F., Kierl J.P., Li J. Accuracy of digital light processing printing of 3-dimensional dental models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 157: 422-28.
Greco G.B., Popi D., Di Stefano D.A. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printing of dental casts: A proposal for quality standardization. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127 (6): 899-910.
Kim J.H., Pinhata-Baptista O.H., Ayres A.P., Silva R.L.B., Lima J.F., Urbano G.S., et al. Accuracy comparison among 3D-printing technologies to produce dental models. Appl Sci. 2022; 12: 17, 8425.
Rungrojwittayakul O., Kan J.Y., Shiozaki K., Swamidass R.S., Goodacre B.J., Goodacre C.J., et al. Accuracy of 3D printed models created by two technologies of printers with different designs of model base. J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 124-28.
Kim S.Y., Shin Y.S., Jung H.D., Hwang C.J., Baik HS, Cha JY. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 153: 144-53.
Mangano F.G., Veronesi G., Hauschild U., Mijiritsky E., Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0163107.
Ortensi L., Lo Castro E., Rapisarda E., Pedullà E. Accuracy of trial restorations from virtual planning: A comparison of two fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127: 425-29.
Pesce P., Pera F., Setti P., Menini M. Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-75.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Leonard Walter Huamani Diaz, Henry Flores Concha, Jorge Yóplac Hung, Liliana Tumbalobos Carhuas, Consuelo Marroquín-Soto, César-Augusto Padilla-Avalos.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ODOVTOS - Int. J. Dent. Sc. endorses CC BY-NC-SA
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
