Table Info

Group	Measurement area
Siraya Tech Cast	25.27 ± 1.88	125.27 ± 9.62	48.98 ± 6.26
FotoDent^® Cast	27.87 ± 3.65	116.19 ± 10.96	77.10 ± 23.39
Form 3 Castable Wax Resin	21.07 ± 1.98	104.23 ± 10.08	37.98 ± 4.46

Declarations

Author contributions

WAC and IJDK: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. MG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. TA: Validation, Investigation, Data curation. AM: Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

References

Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater. 2016;32:54–64. [DOI] [PubMed]

Park JH, Jung JW, Kang HW, Cho DW. Indirect three-dimensional printing of synthetic polymer scaffold based on thermal molding process. Biofabrication. 2014;6:025003. [DOI] [PubMed]

Ishida Y, Miyasaka T. Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J. 2016;35:250–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

Chaudhary R, Fabbri P, Leoni E, Mazzanti F, Akbari R, Antonini C. Additive manufacturing by digital light processing: a review. Prog Addit Manuf. 2023;8:331–51. [DOI]

McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131:107–11. [DOI] [PubMed]

Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:405–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

Bae EJ, Jeong ID, Kim WC, Kim JH. A comparative study of additive and subtractive manufacturing for dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:187–93. [DOI] [PubMed]

Arora O, Ahmed N, Maiti S. Comparison of the marginal accuracy of metal copings fabricated by 3D-printed resin and milled polymethyl methacrylate—An in vitro study. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022;13:S238–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kakinuma H, Izumita K, Yoda N, Egusa H, Sasaki K. Comparison of the accuracy of resin-composite crowns fabricated by three-dimensional printing and milling methods. Dent Mater J. 2022;41:808–15. [DOI] [PubMed]

10.

Son K, Lee JH, Lee KB. Comparison of Intaglio Surface Trueness of Interim Dental Crowns Fabricated with SLA 3D Printing, DLP 3D Printing, and Milling Technologies. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9:983. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

11.

Park JY, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Comparison of prosthetic models produced by traditional and additive manufacturing methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7:294–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Khaledi AA, Farzin MM, Akhlaghian M, Pardis S, Mir N. Evaluation of the marginal fit of metal copings fabricated by using 3 different CAD-CAM techniques: Milling, stereolithography, and 3D wax printer. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:81–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Tarvonen P, Silvast T, Lappalainen R. Accuracy of Dental Restorations Fabricated Using Milling vs 3D-Printed Molds: A Pilot Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2024;37:79–88. [DOI] [PubMed]

14.

Refaie A, Fouda A, Bourauel C, Singer L. Marginal gap and internal fit of 3D printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:448. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

15.

Fathi HM, Al-Masoody AH, El-Ghezawi N, Johnson A. The Accuracy of Fit of Crowns Made from Wax Patterns Produced Conventionally (Hand Formed) and Via CAD/CAM Technology. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016;24:10–7. [PubMed]

16.

Lu TY, Lin WC, Yang TH, Sahrir CD, Shen YK, Feng SW. The Influence of Dental Virtualization, Restoration Types, and Placement Angles on the Trueness and Contact Space in 3D-Printed Crowns: A Comprehensive Exploration. Dent J (Basel). 2023;12:2. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors Influencing the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Full-Coverage Dental Restorations Using Stereolithography Technology. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:503–10. [DOI] [PubMed]

18.

Metin DS, Schmidt F, Beuer F, Prause E, Ashurko I, Sarmadi BS, et al. Accuracy of the intaglio surface of 3D-printed hybrid resin-ceramic crowns, veneers and table-tops: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2024;144:104960. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Cao J, Liu X, Cameron A, Aarts J, Choi JJE. Influence of different post-processing methods on the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed photopolymers for dental crown applications—A systematic review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2024;150:106314. [DOI] [PubMed]

20.

Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Ritter AV. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2012.

21.

Yilmaz B, Donmez MB, Kahveci Ç, Cuellar AR, de Paula MS, Schimmel M, et al. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured removable dies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:1318.e1–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

22.

Al-Imam H, Gram M, Benetti AR, Gotfredsen K. Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:580–5. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. In: Carmichael M, editor. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.

Group	Measurement area
Group	Occlusal	Marginal	Axial
Siraya Tech Cast	25.27 ± 1.88	125.27 ± 9.62	48.98 ± 6.26
FotoDent^® Cast	27.87 ± 3.65	116.19 ± 10.96	77.10 ± 23.39
Form 3 Castable Wax Resin	21.07 ± 1.98	104.23 ± 10.08	37.98 ± 4.46