Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education| Volume 129, ISSUE 1, P166-173, January 2023

Download started.


Influence of base design on the manufacturing accuracy of vat-polymerized diagnostic casts: An in vitro study


      Statement of problem

      Vat-polymerized casts can be designed with different bases, but the influence of the base design on the accuracy of the casts remains unclear.


      The purpose of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of various base designs (solid, honeycombed, and hollow) with 2 different wall thicknesses (1 mm and 2 mm) on the accuracy of vat-polymerized diagnostic casts.

      Material and methods

      A virtual maxillary cast was obtained and used to create 3 different base designs: solid (S group), honeycombed (HC group), and hollow (H group). The HC and H groups were further divided into 2 subgroups based on the wall thickness of the cast designed: 1 mm (HC-1 and H-1) and 2 mm (HC-2 and H-2) (N=50, n=10). All the specimens were manufactured with a vat-polymerized printer (Nexdent 5100) and a resin material (Nexdent Model Ortho). The linear and 3D discrepancies between the virtual cast and each specimen were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Trueness was defined as the mean of the average absolute dimensional discrepancy between the virtual cast and the AM specimens and precision as the standard deviation of the dimensional discrepancies between the virtual cast and the AM specimens. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U pairwise comparison tests (α=.05).


      The trueness ranged from 63.73 μm to 77.17 μm, and the precision ranged from 44.00 μm to 54.24 μm. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences on the x- (P<.001), y- (P=.006), and z-axes (P<.001) and on the 3D discrepancy (P<.001). On the x-axis, the Mann-Whitney test revealed significant differences between the S and H-1 groups (P<.001), S and H-2 groups (P<.001), HC-1 and H-1 groups (P<.001), HC-1 and H-2 groups (P<.001), HC-2 and H-1 groups (P<.001), and HC-2 and H-2 groups (P<.001); on the y-axis, between the S and H-1 groups (P<.001), HC-1 and H-1 groups (P=.001), HC-1 and H-2 groups (P=.02), HC-2 and H-1 groups (P<.001), HC-2 and H-2 groups (P=.003); and on the z-axis, between the S and H-1 groups (P=.003). For the 3D discrepancy analysis, significant differences were found between the S and H-1 groups (P<.001), S and H-2 groups (P=.004), HC-1 and H-1 groups (P=.04), and HC-2 and H-1 groups (P=.002).


      The base designs tested influenced the manufacturing accuracy of the diagnostic casts fabricated with a vat-polymerization printer, with the solid and honeycombed bases providing the greatest accuracy. However, all the specimens were clinically acceptable.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Revilla-León M.
        • Özcan M.
        Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 146-158
        • Torabi K.
        • Farjood E.
        • Hamedani S.
        Rapid prototyping technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature.
        J Dent (Shiraz). 2015; 16: 1-9
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Sadeghpour M.
        • Özcan M.
        An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry.
        Odontology. 2020; 108: 331-338
        • ISO 17296–2
        Additive manufacturing general principles part 2: overview of process categories and feedstock.
        (Available at:)
        • Hull C.W.
        Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography.
        1986 (US Patent 4575330)
        • Hornbeck L.
        Digital micromirror device.
        2009 (US Patent No. 5061.049)
        • Holt P.M.
        Maskless photopolymer exposure process and apparatus.
        2012 (US Patent 8.114.569 B2)
      1. Desimone JM, Ermoshkin A, Ermoshkin N, Samulski ET. Continuous liquid interphase printing. Patent WO 2014/126837A2. PCT/US2014/015506, 2014.

        • Etemad-Shahidi Y.
        • Qallandar O.B.
        • Evenden J.
        • Alifui-Segbaya F.
        • Ahmed K.E.
        Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: a systematic review.
        J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 3357
        • Aly P.
        • Mohsen C.
        Comparison of the accuracy of three-dimensional printed casts, digital, and conventional casts: an in vitro study.
        Eur J Dent. 2020; 14: 189-193
        • 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: 124-128
        • Kim S.Y.
        • Shin Y.S.
        • Jung H.D.
        • Hwang C.J.
        • Baik H.S.
        • Cha J.Y.
        Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 153: 144-153
        • Brown G.B.
        • Currier G.F.
        • Kadioglu O.
        • Kierl J.P.
        Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154: 733-739
        • Park M.E.
        • Shin S.Y.
        Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 861.e1-861.e7
        • Camardella L.T.
        • Vilella O.D.V.
        • Breuning H.
        Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151: 1178-1187
        • Dietrich C.A.
        • Ender A.
        • Baumgartner S.
        • Mehl A.
        A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by two technologies.
        Angle Orthod. 2017; 87: 782-787
        • Burde A.V.
        • Gasparik C.
        • Baciu S.
        • Manole M.
        • Dudea D.
        • Câmpian R.S.
        Three-dimensional accuracy evaluation of two additive manufacturing processes in the production of dental models.
        Key Eng Mater. 2017; 752: 119-125
        • Rossini G.
        • Parrini S.
        • Castroflorio T.
        • Deregibus A.
        • Debernardi C.L.
        Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149: 161-170
        • Cho S.H.
        • Schaefer O.
        • Thompson G.A.
        • Guentsch A.
        Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 310-315
        • Hazeveld A.
        • Huddleston Slater J.J.
        • Ren Y.
        Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145: 108-115
        • Cuperus A.M.R.
        • Harms M.C.
        • Rangel F.A.
        • Bronkhorst E.M.
        • Schols J.G.
        • Breuning K.H.
        Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142: 308-313
        • Favero C.S.
        • English J.D.
        • Cozad B.E.
        • Wirthlin J.O.
        • Short M.M.
        • Kasper F.K.
        Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 152: 557-565
        • Puebla K.
        • Arcaute K.
        • Quintana R.
        • Wicker R.B.
        Effects of environmental conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography.
        Rapid Prototyp J. 2012; 18: 374-388
        • Braian M.
        • Jimbo R.
        • Wennerberg A.
        Production tolerance of additive manufactured polymeric objects for clinical applications.
        Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 853-861
        • Ide Y.
        • Nayar S.
        • Logan H.
        • Gallagher B.
        • Wolfaardt J.
        The effect of the angle of acuteness of additive manufactured models and the direction of printing on the dimensional fidelity: clinical implications.
        Odontology. 2017; 105: 108-115
        • Alharbi N.
        • Osman R.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Effect of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D printed complete coverage interim dental restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 155: 760-767
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Umorin M.
        • Özcan M.
        • Piedra-Cascón W.
        Color dimensions of additive manufactured interim restorative dental material.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 754-760
        • Zhang Z.C.
        • Li P.L.
        • Chu F.T.
        • Shen G.
        Influence of the three dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy.
        J Orofac Orthop. 2019; 80: 194-204
        • Park G.S.
        • Kim S.K.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Koak J.Y.
        • Seo D.G.
        Effects of printing parameters on the fit of implant-supported 3D printing resin prosthetics.
        Materials (Basel). 2019; 12: 2533
        • Loflin W.A.
        • English J.D.
        • Borders C.
        • Harris L.M.
        • Moon A.
        • Holland J.N.
        • et al.
        Effect of print layer height on the assessment of 3D-printed models.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 156: 283-289
        • 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: 231-237
        • Arnold C.
        • Monsees D.
        • Hey J.
        • Schweyen R.
        Surface quality of 3D-printed models as a function of various printing parameters.
        Materials (Basel). 2019; 19: 12
        • Unkovskiy A.
        • Bui P.H.
        • Schille C.
        • Geis-Gerstorfer J.
        • Huettig F.
        • Spintzyk S.
        Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin.
        Dent Mater. 2018; 34: e324-e333
        • Alharbi N.
        • Osman R.B.
        • Wismeijer D.
        Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 503-510
        • Chockalingam K.
        • Jawahar N.
        • Chandrasekhar U.
        Influence of layer thickness on mechanical properties in stereolithography.
        Rapid Prototyp J. 2006; 12: 106-113
        • Joda T.
        • Matthisson L.
        • Zitzmann N.U.
        Impact of aging on the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models: an in vitro investigation.
        J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 1436
        • ISO 5725-1
        Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: general principles and definitions.
        (Available at:)
      2. Specifications and requirements Nexdent 5100 printer of 3D Systems.
        (Available at:)