This led to the manufacturing of tables loaded with ibuprofen, paracetamol and acetylsalicylic acid [9]. The traditional chemically activated resin-based composites form cross-links during copolymerization of methyl methacrylate and ethylene glycol di-methacrylate. The di-methacrylate monomers polymerize by means of free radical-initiated polymerization to form the organic matrix of a three-dimensional network. This highly viscous monomer can undergo free radical addition polymerization to provide a rigid cross-linked polymer. Usually, the benzoyl peroxide present in one paste acts as the initiator, whereas a tertiary amine (di-hydroxyethyl-p-toluidine) acts as the catalyst in the other paste [10]. In the near future, printing biocompatible and relatively flexible retention/lining devices may be feasible. The advantages of these techniques are accuracy, precision, speed and ease of use [10]. By using a variety of materials, it allows the creation of a complex geometric shape. The intra-oral scanning has seen an increased use in orthodontics, leading to successful and practical use of additive manufacturing techniques. It has also shown success in the area of restorative dentistry with the use of different printing patterns. The one area where this technology has started to prove essential is implant surgery. It plays an important role in treatment and the planning of complex surgeries [11]. By using surgical guides from resins, surgery proves to be more accurate and predictable and at the same time less invasive [12]. The costs associated with additive manufacturing have become lower and the entire process is more efficient. However, there are still concerns and major impediments to their further adoption in dentistry. It is also important to highlight the need for well-trained post-processing operators that follow strict safety and health standards [13]. The 3D technology role in the area of dentistry has only scratched the surface and it is exciting to see its future applications. The world's first commercial stereolithography (SLA) printer was produced by Hull in 1988, later that year founding 3D System [71]. The selective sintering process (SLS) with laser was invented by [PERSON] around the same time [14]. The two printing techniques are very different. SLA has become highly used due to its ability to produce isotropic, high-accuracy and watertight prototypes. It has become the most common printing process for resin. SLA usage is also highly associated with materials that lead to smooth surface finish [15; 16; 17]. Vat photopolymerization is mostly achieved by two manufacturing processes, SLA (discussed above) and digital light processing (DLP). The technology has gone a long way from the initial days and it has become cost-effective with small-format desktop 3D printers producing industrial-quality models at affordable prices. Both processes work by exposing liquid resin to a light source. In the case of DLP it is a projector, while in the case of SLA it is a laser. This process forms thin solid layers of plastic. The layers stack up to end up creating the solid object. Even though the two manufacturing processes are quite similar, the outputs could end up being different [18; 19]. This study aims to compare and evaluate the accuracy of 3D printed dental models based on ethylene di-methacrylate using the SLA and DLP techniques.