Background <p>Bridge preparation skills are a vital component of dental education and require specific techniques. This study aimed to develop and evaluate 3D printed teeth for use in defect-oriented bridge preparation and pre-prosthetic exercises in dental training, addressing the limited customization and lack of integrated workflows found in commercial typodont teeth. The null hypothesis stated that 3D printed teeth offered no advantage over established typodont training methods for bridge preparation.</p> Methods <p>Custom 3D printed teeth were designed to support integrated workflows with defect-oriented preparation techniques and evaluated by fourth-year dental students in three sequential hands-on courses. Students had completed preclinical studies. Feedback was collected using a structured questionnaire comparing 3D printed teeth with conventional typodonts. Evaluation domains included pre-prosthetic exercise, preparation experience, learning process, learning success, and overall training, measured via Visual Analog Scales. Free-text responses captured perceived strengths and areas for improvement. Exercise complexity was reduced due to external factors and poor initial evaluations: pre-prosthetic exercises were omitted after the first course, and provisional bridge fabrication after the second.</p> Results <p>A total of 116 fourth-year students participated. Although student evaluations were subjective, they provided valuable insight into the usability and learning experience of the 3D printed teeth. 3D printed teeth were rated relatively low in perceived realism in caries excavation (mean 30.58 ± 24.74) and core build-up placement (mean 47.77 ± 26.22). Tactile feedback during preparation was rated comparably (<i>p</i> = 0.906) for 3D printed and typodont teeth. Ratings for 3D printed teeth improved significantly from the first to third courses in tactile feedback (<i>p</i> = 0.008), learning process (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), learning success (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and suitability (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Interest in using 3D printed teeth increased (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), though students were cautious about fully replacing typodonts. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.772–0.857). Free-text feedback highlighted the need for greater hardness (<i>n</i> = 43). Cost-effectiveness (<i>n</i> = 43) and realism (<i>n</i> = 18) were identified as key advantages.</p> Conclusions <p>The 3D printed teeth allowed students to practice defect-oriented bridge preparation. Despite subjective data and methodological limitations, they show promise as a tool to support dental education.</p>