Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 28, 2026
07:42
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Fixed prosthodontics: time to change the status quo?
Gordon J Christensen1, Paul L Child
1American Board of Prosthodontics, USA. info@pccdental.com
Dentistry Today
|October 11, 2011
Summary
Most indirect dental restorations are made conventionally, but digital impressions and in-office milling are growing trends. Dentists are satisfied with digital workflows, which are expected to dominate the market.
Area of Science:
- Restorative Dentistry
- Dental Technology
Background:
- Conventional indirect restorations involve multiple appointments, traditional impressions (VPS or polyether), laboratory fabrication, and cementation.
- Digital workflows for indirect restorations are emerging as alternatives.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare conventional indirect restoration procedures with emerging digital impression and in-office milling techniques.
- To assess practitioner satisfaction with digital workflows for indirect restorations.
Main Methods:
- Review of current practices in indirect restoration fabrication in the United States.
- Discussion of conventional procedures, digital impressions sent to laboratories, and in-office milling (e.g., CEREC, E4D).
Main Results:
- Conventional methods remain dominant but digital impressions with laboratory fabrication show high practitioner satisfaction.
- In-office milling systems (CEREC, E4D) are reliable clinical processes and are expected to grow.
- Digital impressions are predicted to gradually increase market share.
Conclusions:
- All three concepts—conventional, digital impressions to lab, and in-office milling—are currently acceptable based on practitioner preference.
- Digital impression technology and in-office milling are anticipated to become increasingly prevalent in restorative dentistry.
