M. Reymus, B. Stawarczyk, A. Winkler, J. Ludwig, S. Kess, G. Krastl, R. Krug

• Aim To assess the suitability of several 3D‐printed resins for the manufacturing of tooth replicas for endodontic training in comparison with commercially available replicas by analysing the properties of the materials and comparing them with real teeth during endodontic training. Methodology Tooth replicas were 3D‐printed using four resins (NextDent Model, NextDent C&B, V‐Print ee and Vero White Plus) and compared with two commercially available products (VDW and Smile Factory) as well as extracted human teeth. Martens hardness,Aim To assess the suitability of several 3D‐printed resins for the manufacturing of tooth replicas for endodontic training in comparison with commercially available replicas by analysing the properties of the materials and comparing them with real teeth during endodontic training. Methodology Tooth replicas were 3D‐printed using four resins (NextDent Model, NextDent C&B, V‐Print ee and Vero White Plus) and compared with two commercially available products (VDW and Smile Factory) as well as extracted human teeth. Martens hardness, indentation modulus and radiopacity were investigated on these tooth replicas. Experienced dentists evaluated the suitability of the replicas for endodontic training by comparing them with real teeth in terms of appearance, anatomy, radiopacity, similarity to dentine during access opening, canal gauging and canal instrumentation. Data were analysed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Mann–Whitney U‐test. Results The greatest hardness values were recorded for human dentine (P < 0.001), followed by V‐Print ee and the commercial tooth replica of Smile Factory. The greatest radiopacity was associated with VOC and dentine (P < 0.001) in comparison with the other materials tested. The appearance of the in‐house printed tooth replicas was subjectively evaluated by the dentists as being more realistic than the commercially available products. No differences between the replicas was detected during mechanical instrumentation of root canals. Conclusion None of the tooth replicas were able to simulate human dentine from the perspectives evaluated. V‐Print ee had radiopacity comparable with dentine, but its hardness was not comparable with dentine.…