Intraoral scanning (IOS) gives you options. After you capture a flawless digital impression, you can send the case to your lab and finish it model-free (design, mill/print, deliver)—or you can print a physical model and articulate it before fabrication. Both approaches can produce exquisite results. The question is not “which is better,” but when each route is best for accuracy, speed, risk management, and chairside predictability.

This guide compares a model-free workflow dental path to workflows that rely on 3D printed dental models. You’ll see how scanner accuracy, virtual articulator dentistry, occlusion, and material choices interact; how case selection changes your risk profile; and how to communicate with your lab to eliminate remakes. We’ll also cover digital impressions model free efficiency, printed model accuracy dental realities, articulation for printed models, and digital vs printed models turnaround—so you can set patient expectations and hit delivery dates with confidence.

The Two Roads After IOS

Route 1: Model-free crown and bridge

• Definition: The lab designs from your IOS with a virtual articulator, manufactures the prosthesis, and returns it without producing a physical model.
• Why choose it: Maximum speed, fewer analog steps, and excellent results when occlusion is well captured and the case is low-risk.

Route 2: IOS → 3D printed dental models

• Definition: The lab prints models from your scans, mounts them (digitally and/or physically), verifies contacts and occlusion, and uses them for QC or analog steps (e.g., pressing e.max, staining contacts).
• Why choose it: A physical reference reduces uncertainty for complex occlusion, full-arch work, and cases with tight proximal/occlusal schemes.

Key insight: You don’t have to pick one forever. Many practices run hybrid protocols—model-free for single posterior units and printed models for multi-unit or esthetic/occlusion-sensitive cases. Associated Dental Lab supports both, with published turnaround info you can plan around.

Accuracy Foundations: What the Literature Says

Scanner + design + manufacture = system accuracy

Accuracy is cumulative: the trueness of the IOS, the fidelity of the design, and the fabrication method all contribute to the seat you experience. Contemporary reviews and in-vitro studies report high-quality outcomes from modern IOS and printed/milled workflows; printing technology (SLA/DLP/PolyJet) and settings affect model fidelity. PMC

• Systematic and experimental work indicates 3D printed dental models can be clinically acceptable in accuracy and often outperform plaster casts derived from conventional impressions, though prosthodontic tolerances are tighter than orthodontic tolerances. MDPI
• Dimensional stability depends on resin, orientation, and post-cure regimen; orientation and time can subtly influence trueness. BioMed Central

Virtual articulators are getting good—know their limits

Recent reviews and comparative studies suggest virtual articulator dentistry accurately simulates static relationships and many mandibular movements, improving planning and efficiency—though dynamic, patient-specific movements remain the main limitation in complex occlusal cases.

Translation: A model-free workflow dental is highly reliable for single crowns and straightforward bridges when your bite capture is excellent and excursions are understood. For delicate anterior guidance or full-arch rehabs, a printed model with physical or validated digital articulation reduces risk.

Case Selection: A Simple Traffic-Light System

Green light: Great for model-free crown and bridge

• Single posterior crowns with stable occlusion and clear, dry margins
• 2–3 unit posterior FPDs with good tooth control and repeatable MIP
• Cases with prior successful digital history (you and the lab know the patient’s bite)

Yellow light: Consider 3D printed dental models for QC

• Anterior single units where incisal edge and guidance must be dialed in
• Opposing porcelain or zirconia with history of wear or chipping
• Patients with variable mandibular movements or parafunction

Red light: Print models and articulate

• Cross-arch rehabilitations; multiple units across the occlusal scheme
• Open bites, crossbites, or altered VDO cases
• Implant hybrids or splinted implant bridges requiring verified occlusion

These buckets map to Associated Dental Lab’s mixed digital/analog capabilities and fast local options, which can compress timelines even when a printed model is the safer choice.

Capturing the Bite: Make or Break for Model-Free

Even the best virtual articulator dentistry needs a reliable maxillomandibular record. Practical reminders:

1. Dry, clean occlusal surfaces before buccal bite capture (powder if your scanner benefits).
2. Tripodize the bite—capture bilateral posterior and an anterior zone to anchor the relation.
3. Scan sequence discipline: upper → lower → buccal bite, then verify the occlusal map on-screen; re-scan small areas with artifacts rather than re-doing the whole arch.
4. Avoid tissue interference: ensure cheeks/tongue aren’t bridging occlusal tables during buccal bite.
5. If in doubt, send a physical bite (PVS bite or printed verification index) with the files—hybrid redundancy that costs little and prevents a second appointment.

Meta-analyses on static virtual articulation show acceptable accuracy when records are clean, and manufacturers publish IOS protocols that materially impact outcomes. ScienceDirect

Printed Model Accuracy: What Helps (and What Hurts)

Things that improve printed model accuracy dental

• Correct resin for models and validated printer/post-cure workflow
• Proper support strategy and build orientation (minimizing warpage)
• Printing dies or analog inserts only when necessary to reduce stack-up error
• Timely post-processing; dimensional drift can occur with long delays or heat exposure

Things that degrade accuracy

• Printing at extreme angles without compensating supports
• Under-curing or over-curing (brittleness, shrinkage)
• Re-using resin beyond the recommended life
  Evidence across reviews and experimental studies shows that print orientation and technology meaningfully influence trueness and precision; clinics and labs should standardize for repeatability.

Virtual vs. Physical Articulation: Choosing Wisely

Virtual articulation (software only)

• Pros: Rapid; repeatable; integrates with CAD design; easy to share with your lab.
• Cons: Relies completely on bite record and parameter assumptions; complex dynamics may not replicate patient-specific function perfectly. Reviews call out strengths in static accuracy with caveats for complex, dynamic cases.

Articulation for printed models (physical or validated digital-to-physical)

• Pros: Tangible verification for tight occlusion/contacts; easier to visualize protrusive/lateral interferences; useful for analog steps (stain, glaze, surface texture).
• Cons: Adds cost and a day or two to digital vs printed models turnaround depending on your lab’s logistics.

3D printing in dentistry is mature enough that articulated printed models can be both accurate and efficient when executed under validated protocols. implantpracticeus.com

Turnaround Time: Digital vs Printed Models

• Model-free workflow dental is generally the fastest: design → CAM → deliver.
• Adding 3D printed dental models typically adds manufacturing + curing + potential articulation time. With an in-house lab partner, that overhead can be modest. Associated Dental Lab publishes standard turnarounds and offers same-day local repairs and local pickups, which help keep complex cases moving.

Pragmatic tip: If a case is borderline, ask the lab to design model-free, then print a verification model only if the occlusion looks suspicious during CAD. This keeps speed for the majority while protecting outliers.

Material Choices and Margin Strategies

• Lithium disilicate or zirconia seats are predictable in both model-free and printed-model workflows—provided margins are distinct and isolation is excellent during bonding or cementation.
• For subgingival margins, a printed model can help the technician visualize emergence and finish lines in tricky areas; yet modern CAD tools with tessellated margin detection are extremely capable when scans are clean.

Pro move: communicate the restoration material and cement strategy on the Rx so the lab pre-treats or surface-preps intaglios correctly (HF/silane for LDS; air-abrasion for zirconia).

Lab Communication: Exactly What to Send

• Intent: “Model-free crown and bridge unless occlusion looks questionable; print for QC if needed.”
• Bite confidence: Rate it (A/B/C). If B or C, consider sending a PVS bite or requesting printed verification.
• Occlusion targets: “Light centric, no excursive contacts on #30 distal incline.”
• Photos: shade with tab; occlusal scheme; wear facets; anterior guidance video for esthetics cases.
• Due date & appointment date: lets the lab pick the fastest safe route (model-free vs print).

Associated Dental Lab’s “Send a Case” page includes scanner compatibility and submission options, making this handoff simpler.

Risk Management: Where Remakes Hide

• Weak buccal bite → high occlusion or open contacts. Fix with rescans or a quick printed verification model.
• Long bridges without verification → cumulative error. Print models and articulate or add a verification jig.
• Full-arch without cross-mount → unpredictable excursions. Choose printed models with physical or validated digital articulation.
• Tight esthetics (midline, incisal edge) → consider a printed try-in or PMMA prototype when time allows.

Comparative data suggest model-free and printed workflows both succeed; failures correlate more with records and indication than with the presence/absence of a model.

Practical Playbooks

Playbook A: Posterior single crown (ideal for model-free)

1. IOS U/L + clean buccal bite; verify contact map.
2. Rx notes: “Model-free if occlusion clean; adjust to light centric; no excursive.”
3. Shade photo with tab; delivery: check shimstock and contacts; adjust minimal.

Playbook B: 3-unit posterior FPD (borderline)

1. IOS + excellent bite; note parafunction if present.
2. Ask the lab to design model-free; print a model only if digital occlusion looks tight.
3. Delivery: use articulating film and shimstock; minor refinements.

Playbook C: Anterior veneer/crown in guidance (print models)

1. IOS + video of “F/V” and “S” sounds; photograph edge display.
2. Printed model + articulation; technician refines guidance.
3. Consider a printed mock-up or PMMA; finalize ceramic with confidence.

Cost Considerations

• Model-free usually reduces lab cost and chair time.
• Printed model adds material and time; the trade-off is fewer adjustments and higher confidence in complex occlusion. Many practices treat printed models as low-cost “insurance” for sensitive cases.
• For multi-unit esthetic or functional rehabs, a staged approach (prototype/PMMA then final) adds cost but reduces remakes dramatically.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1) Are 3D printed dental models accurate enough for crown and bridge?

Yes—when printed with validated resins, orientations, and post-cure protocols, accuracy is clinically acceptable, with some studies showing printed models outperforming stone casts from conventional impressions. Prosthodontics still demands tighter tolerances than orthodontics, so use printed QC for complex cases.

2) When should I choose a model-free workflow dental over printed models?

Choose model-free for single posterior crowns and straightforward short-span bridges with reliable bites and clear margins. Opt for printed models when guidance is delicate, excursions are complex, or you need tangible QC before delivery.

3) Does a virtual articulator dentistry setup replace a physical articulator?

For many static occlusions, yes. Reviews show good accuracy and efficiency, but dynamic, patient-specific movements (full-arch rehabs, altered VDO) may still benefit from physical or validated printed articulation.

4) What determines printed model accuracy dental the most?

Printer technology (SLA/DLP/PolyJet), build orientation, resin/post-cure, and time/storage conditions. Standardize your lab’s protocol and avoid extreme angles or under-/over-curing to preserve trueness.

5) Which is faster—digital vs printed models turnaround?

Model-free is typically faster. Printing, curing, and articulating add time, but efficient in-house labs can keep the delta small. Associated Dental Lab posts turnaround ranges and provides same-day local services for certain needs.

6) Can I run digital impressions model free but print a model only if needed?

Absolutely. Many teams instruct the lab to proceed model-free by default and print a verification model only if the virtual occlusion looks risky—best of both worlds for speed and safety.

7) What does articulation for printed models add to quality?

Physical articulation lets technicians verify contacts and excursions on a tangible reference, apply analog finishing (stain, glaze), and catch high points that might not appear in virtual contacts—especially useful when opposing porcelain or in long-span restorations.

Conclusion

IOS lets you finish cases faster with fewer steps—model-free crown and bridge is real, reliable, and efficient. Still, printed models remain central when occlusion is complex, esthetics are unforgiving, or you want added QC. Treat 3D printed dental models and a model-free workflow dental as complementary tools. The smart play is to tailor the route to the indication: go model-free when records are pristine and risk is low; print models and articulate when the case demands extra confidence.

About Associated Dental Lab
Associated Dental Lab is a dentists’ trusted Full-Service Dental Lab in Los Angeles. They accept digital impressions from major IOS platforms, provide a streamlined Send a Case process with local pickup and prepaid shipping, and fabricate cases in-house for consistent, fast turnarounds. If you want a partner fluent in model-free and 3D printed dental models with real-world scheduling support, contact Associated Dental Lab and send your next case with confidence.