Research and Education| Volume 129, ISSUE 2, P350-353, February 2023

Download started.


Cost and effectiveness of 3-dimensionally printed model using three different printing layer parameters and two resins


      Statement of problem

      When 3-dimensional printing casts, the operator can change the type of resin and the printing layer thickness, reducing the fabrication time. However, how these parameters affect the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts is unknown.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts by using a stereolithography (SLA) 3-dimensional printer (Forms2) with 3 different layer thickness (25, 50, and 100 μm) and 2 different resins (Gray and Cast) and by comparing the time to obtain each cast.

      Material and Methods

      One master cast was scanned, and a single file was printed several times. The printed casts were then scanned by using a laboratory scanner. The standard tessellation language (STL) files provided by the laboratory scanner were superimposed and compared by using a software program (Geomagic Control; 3D Systems). The 2-way ANOVA test was used for the trueness evaluation, followed by the Tukey test to identify differences among the groups (α=.05).


      No statistically significant differences in accuracy were found among the 3 different layers for either resin (P>.05). Printing time doubled as layer thickness decreased.


      This study showed that when printing casts, the fastest printing settings can be used without losing accuracy and that the laboratory digital workflow can be accelerated with selection of the resin and cast layer, as the type of resin and layer thickness did not influence the quality of the casts.
      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


        • Buda M.
        • Bratos M.
        • Sorensen J.A.
        Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 913-918
        • Christensen G.J.
        Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
        • Arakida T.
        • Kanazawa M.
        • Iwaki M.
        • Suzuki T.
        • Minakuchi S.
        Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 324-329
        • Mizumoto R.M.
        • Yilmaz B.
        Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
        • Ragain J.C.
        • Grosko M.L.
        • Raj M.
        • Ryan T.N.
        • Johnston W.M.
        Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13: 214-220
        • Renne W.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Fryml J.
        • Schurch Z.
        • Mennito A.
        • Kessler R.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
        • 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
        • DIN Deutsches Institut fur Normung
        Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - part 1: General principles and definitions (ISO 5725-1).
        1st ed. Beuth Verlag, Berlin1994
        • Flügge T.V.
        • Att W.
        • Metzger M.C.
        • Nelson K.
        Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-283
        • Hack G.D.
        • Sebastian B.
        • Patzelt M.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation.
        ADA Professional Product Review. 2015; 10: 1-5
        • Su T.S.
        • Sun J.
        Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 236-242
      1. [homepage on the internet]. Formlabs, Inc, Somerville2011 (Available at:)
        • 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: 658-663
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
        • Patzelt S.B.
        • Emmanouilidi A.
        • Stampf S.
        • Strub J.R.
        • Att W.
        Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
        • Kim J.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Shin I.H.
        • Kim M.
        Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
        • Lim J.H.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Myung J.Y.
        Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
        • 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
        • Goodacre C.J.
        • Campagni W.V.
        • Aquilino S.A.
        Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 363-376
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO 9693-1. Dentistry compatibility testing. Part 1: metal-ceramic systems.
        International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2012 (ISO Store Order: OP-184149 (Date: 2017-06-09). Available at:)