Purpose: To evaluate the surface characteristics, accuracy (trueness and precision), and

dimensional stability of tooth preparation dies fabricated using conventional gypsum and direct

light processing (DLP), stereolithography (SLA), and polymer jetting printing (PJP) techniques.

Materials and Methods: Gypsum preparation dies were replicated according to the reference data

and imported into DLP, SLA, and PJP printers, and the test data were obtained by scanning after 0,

1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 42 days. After analyzing the surface characteristics, a best-fit algorithm

between the test and the reference data was used to evaluate the accuracy and dimensional stability 

of the preparation dies. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test or

Kruskal-Wallis H test (α = .05). Results: Compared with the gypsum group (3.61 ± 0.59 μm), the

root mean square error (RMSE) values of the SLA group (5.33 ± 0.48 μm) was rougher (P < .05),

the PJP group (2.43 ± 0.37 μm) was smoother (P < .05), and the DLP group (2.92 ± 0.91 μm) had

no significant difference (P > .05). For trueness, the RMSE was greater in the PJP (34.90 ± 4.91

μm) and SLA (19.01 ± 0.95 μm) groups than in the gypsum (16.47 ± 0.47 μm) group (P < .05), and

no significant difference was found between the DLP (17.10 Å} 1.77 μm) and gypsum groups.

Regarding precision, the RMSE ranking was gypsum = DLP = SLA < PJP group. The RMSE

ranges in the gypsum, DLP, PJP, and SLA groups at different times were 6.79 to 8.86 μm, 5.44 to

10.17 μm, 10.16 to 11.28 μm, and 10.94 to 32.74 μm, respectively. Conclusion: Although gypsum

and printed preparation dies showed statistically significant differences in surface characteristics,

accuracy, and dimensional stability, all tooth preparation dies were clinically tolerated and used to

produce fixed restorations.