Kim MJ, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013 May;5(2):161-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.161

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy. A reference model was prepared with three prepared teeth for three types of restorations: single crown, 3-unit bridge, and inlay. Stone models were fabricated from conventional impressions. Digital impressions of the reference model were created using an intraoral scanner (digital models). Physical models were fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) printer. Reference, stone, and 3D printed models were subsequently scanned using an industrial optical scanner; files were exported in a stereolithography file format. All datasets were superimposed using 3D analysis software to evaluate the accuracy of the complete arch and trueness of the preparations. One-way and two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to compare the accuracy among the three model groups and evaluate the trueness among the three types of preparation. For the complete arch, significant intergroup differences in precision were observed for the three groups (p<.001). However, no significant difference in trueness was found between the stone and digital models (p>.05). 3D printed models had the poorest accuracy. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in trueness among the model groups (p<.001) and types of preparation (p<.001). Digital models had smaller root mean square values of trueness of the complete arch and preparations than stone models. However, the accuracy of the complete arch and trueness of the preparations of 3D printed models were inferior to those of the other groups.