BackgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments.MethodsA study was performed to investigate the trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated using different technology based on low-, medium-, and high-cost 3D printers. Following the segmentation of a patient’s skull, the model was printed by: (i) a low-cost fused filament fabrication printer; (ii) a medium-cost stereolithography printer; and (iii) a high-cost material jetting printer. The fabricated models were later scanned by industrial computed tomography and superimposed onto the original reference virtual model by applying surface-based registration. A part comparison color-coded analysis was conducted for assessing the difference between the reference and scanned models. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis.ResultsThe model printed with the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer showed the highest mean absolute error (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
				\usepackage{amsmath}
				\usepackage{wasysym} 
				\usepackage{amsfonts} 
				\usepackage{amssymb} 
				\usepackage{amsbsy}
				\usepackage{mathrsfs}
				\usepackage{upgreek}
				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
				\begin{document}$$1.33\pm 0.24 \text{mm}$$\end{document}1.33±0.24mm), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
				\usepackage{amsmath}
				\usepackage{wasysym} 
				\usepackage{amsfonts} 
				\usepackage{amssymb} 
				\usepackage{amsbsy}
				\usepackage{mathrsfs}
				\usepackage{upgreek}
				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
				\begin{document}$$0.07\pm 0.03 \text{mm}$$\end{document}0.07±0.03mmand\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
				\usepackage{amsmath}
				\usepackage{wasysym} 
				\usepackage{amsfonts} 
				\usepackage{amssymb} 
				\usepackage{amsbsy}
				\usepackage{mathrsfs}
				\usepackage{upgreek}
				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
				\begin{document}$$0.07\pm 0.01 \text{mm}$$\end{document}0.07±0.01mm, respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
				\usepackage{amsmath}
				\usepackage{wasysym} 
				\usepackage{amsfonts} 
				\usepackage{amssymb} 
				\usepackage{amsbsy}
				\usepackage{mathrsfs}
				\usepackage{upgreek}
				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
				\begin{document}$$p<0.01$$\end{document}p<0.01) lower error compared to the low-cost printer.ConclusionsBoth stereolithography and material jetting based printers, belonging to the medium- and high-cost market segment, were able to replicate the skeletal anatomy with optimal trueness, which might be suitable for patient-specific treatment planning tasks in craniomaxillofacial surgery. In contrast, the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer could serve as a cost-effective alternative for anatomical education, and/or patient communication.