Objectives: To compare the positional trueness of implant-crown bonding to titanium bases (Ti-bases) using different bonding protocols. Materials and Methods: A nonprecious alloy model with a single implant at the mandibular right first molar site was digitized, then a single implant crown was designed. The crown was milled, adhesively cemented on a Ti-base, and screw-retained on the implant in the master model to obtain a reference scan. Forty PMMA implant crowns were subtractively manufactured and allocated to one of four study groups (n = 10 crowns per group) based on the bonding protocol on Ti-bases: Group 1 = modelfree bonding; Group 2 = bonding on the master model (control); Group 3 = bonding on a model from an industrial-grade 3D printer (Prodways); Group 4 = bonding on a model from a conventional 3D printer (Asiga). To assess the positional trueness of crowns, the scans of crowns when on the model were superimposed over the reference scan. Median distance and angular deviations were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann- Whitney tests (α = .05). Mesial and distal contacts of crowns were assessed by two independent clinicians. Results: The control group (Group 2) resulted in the smallest distance deviations (0.30 ± 0.03 mm) compared to model-free (0.35 ± 0.02 mm; P = .002; Group 1) and conventional 3D printer (0.37 ± 0.01 mm; P = .001; Group 4) workflows. Buccolingual (P = .002) and mesiodistal (P = .01) angular deviations were higher in the conventional 3D printer group than in the control group (P = .002). Proximal contact assessments did not show any differences among groups. Conclusions: While bonding crowns to Ti-bases on a master model created with an industrial-grade 3D printer resulted in the highest positional trueness, model-free workflows had a similar positional trueness to those manufactured with a conventional 3D printer.
