Eur J Dent Educ. 2020;24:799–806. | 799 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eje Received: 12 November 2019 | Revised: 18 February 2020 | Accepted: 1 March 2020 DOI: 10.1111/eje.12522 ORIGINAL ARTICLE 3D-printed patient individualised models vs cadaveric models in an undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery curriculum: Comparison of student's perceptions Lukas B. Seifert 1 | Benedikt Schnurr 1 | Carlos Herrera-Vizcaino 1 | Amira Begic 2 | Florian Thieringer 3 | Frank Schwarz 2 | Robert Sader 1 © 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany 2 Polyclinic for Dental Surgery and Implantology, Carolinum Dentistry University Institute gGmbH of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 3 Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Basel University, Basel, Switzerland Correspondence Lukas B. Seifert, Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany. Email: lukasbenedikt.seifert@kgu.de Abstract Background: Recent advances in 3D printing technology have enabled the emer- gence of new educational and clinical tools for medical professionals. This study pro- vides an exemplary description of the fabrication of 3D-printed individualised patient models and assesses their educational value compared to cadaveric models in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods: A single-stage, controlled cohort study was conducted within the context of a curricular course. A patient's CT scan was segmented into a stereolithographic model and then printed using a fused filament 3D printer. These individualised pa- tient models were implemented and compared against cadaveric models in a curricu- lar oral surgery hands-on course. Students evaluated both models using a validated questionnaire. Additionally, a cost analysis for both models was carried out. P-values were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Thirty-eight fourth-year dental students participated in the study. Overall, significant differences between the two models were found in the student assess- ment. Whilst the cadaveric models achieved better results in the haptic feedback of the soft tissue, the 3D-printed individualised patient models were regarded signifi- cantly more realistic with regard to the anatomical correctness, the degree of free- dom of movement and the operative simulation. At 3.46 € (compared to 6.51 €), the 3D-printed patient individualised models were exceptionally cost-efficient. Conclusions: 3D-printed patient individualised models presented a realistic alterna- tive to cadaveric models in the undergraduate training of operational skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whilst the 3D-printed individualised patient models re- ceived positive feedback from students, some aspects of the model leave room for improvement. KEYWORDS 3D printing, 3D rapid prototyping, dentoalveolar surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, simulation training