Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of provisional fixed dental prostheses which was three-dimensional (3D) printed by several build directions. Materials and Methods: A metal jig with two abutment teeth and pontic space in the middle was fabricated. This jig was scanned with a desktop scanner and provisional restoration was designed on dental computer-aided design program. On the preprocessing software, the build angles of the restorations were arranged at $0^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $60^{\circ}$, and $90^{\circ}$ and support was added and resultant structure was sliced to a thickness of $100{\mu}m$. Processed restorations were printed with digital light processing type 3D printer using poly methyl meta acrylate-based resin. After washing and post-curing, compressive loading was applied at a speed of 1 mm/min on a metal jig fixed to a universal testing machine. The maximum pressure at which fracture occurred was measured. For the statistical analysis, build direction was set as the independent variable and fracture strength as the dependent variable. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc analysis was conducted to compare fracture strength among groups (${\alpha}=0.05$). Result: The mean flexural strength of provisional restoration 3D printed with the build direction of $0^{\circ}$ was $1,053{\pm}168N$; it was $1,183{\pm}188N$ at $30^{\circ}$, $1,178{\pm}81N$ at $45^{\circ}$, $1,166{\pm}133N$ at $60^{\circ}$, and $949{\pm}170N$ at $90^{\circ}$. The group with a build direction of $90^{\circ}$ showed significantly lower flexural strength than other groups (P<0.05). The flexural strength was significantly higher when the build direction was $30^{\circ}$ than when it was $90^{\circ}$ (P<0.01). Conclusion: Among the build directions $0^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $60^{\circ}$, and $90^{\circ}$ set for 3D printing of fixed dental prosthesis, an orientation of $30^{\circ}$ is recommended as an effective build direction for 3D printing.