Accuracy of three-dimensional, paper-based models generated using a low-cost, three-dimensional printer.

Our study aimed to determine the accuracy of a low-cost, paper-based 3D printer by comparing a dry human mandible to its corresponding three-dimensional (3D) model using a 3D measuring arm. One dry human mandible and its corresponding printed model were evaluated. The model was produced using DICOM data from cone beam computed tomography. The data were imported into Maxilim software, wherein automatic segmentation was performed, and the STL file was saved. These data were subsequently analysed, repaired, cut and prepared for printing with netfabb software. These prepared data were used to create a paper-based model of a mandible with an MCor Matrix 300 printer. Seventy-six anatomical landmarks were chosen and measured 20 times on the mandible and the model using a MicroScribe G2X 3D measuring arm. The distances between all the selected landmarks were measured and compared. Only landmarks with a point inaccuracy less than 30% were used in further analyses. The mean absolute difference for the selected 2016 measurements was 0.36 ± 0.29 mm. The mean relative difference was 1.87 ± 3.14%; however, the measurement length significantly influenced the relative difference. The accuracy of the 3D model printed using the paper-based, low-cost 3D Matrix 300 printer was acceptable. The average error was no greater than that measured with other types of 3D printers. The mean relative difference should not be considered the best way to compare studies. The point inaccuracy methodology proposed in this study may be helpful in future studies concerned with evaluating the accuracy of 3D rapid prototyping models.