The use of 3D printing in the fabrication of immediate prosthetic restorations requires the possibility of sterilization. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different sterilization methods on the parameters of 3D-printing materials for dental prosthesis plates compared to conventional acrylic material. Forty-four samples were prepared for each tested material: Denture 3D+ (NextDent, The Netherlands), Denturetec (Saremco, Switzerland), Optiprint Laviva (Dentona, Germany), and Rapid Simplified (Vertex Dental, Netherlands). The impact strength of the samples was tested in a HIT 5.5P instrument (Zwick Roell, Germany) after three sterilization methods (pressurized steam, ethylene oxide, and radiation) and without sterilization as a control group. Significantly higher energy and impact strength were recorded for the conventional acrylic material. For Nextdent material, the recommended method of sterilization in terms of impaction is autoclave or ethylene oxide sterilization, Saremco—ethylene oxide sterilization, and Denton—ethylene oxide or radiation sterilization. Conventional acrylic material has a higher impact strength than 3D-printed material, which may encourage the selection of this material for restorations requiring higher fracture strength. The possibility of sterilizing the Nextdent 3D-printed material in the autoclave without worsening its durability makes it a recommended choice for digital clinical practice.