This paper reviews the current state of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry, with a special focus on restorative dental applications. The potential, advantages, and limitations of the technology will be discussed, comparing the digital workflow to conventional techniques, based on contemporary clinical evidence. The technology does seem to offer a more streamlined and efficient means of treatment planning and delivery of care through reduced chairside time, with reported improved patient satisfaction. Nonetheless, the accuracy and treatment outcomes of CAD/CAM treatment modalities are inconsistent and do not support a superior performance to existing conventional techniques, rather a comparable one.
ZhangF, SuhK-J, LeeK-M.Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis. PLoS ONE.2016;11(6):e0157713.
2.
AlghazzawiTF.Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. Journal of Prosthodontic Research.2016;60(2):72–84.
3.
SteinmasslP-A, KlaunzerF, SteinmasslO, DumfahrtH, GrunertI.Evaluation of Currently Available CAD/CAM Denture Systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics.2017;30(2).
4.
ArnoldC, HeyJ, SchweyenR, SetzJM.Accuracy of CAD-CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017.
5.
InfanteL, YilmazB, McGlumphyE, FingerI.Fabricating complete dentures with CAD/CAM technology. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2014;111(5):351–5.
6.
AhmedKE, WhittersJ, JuX, PierceG, MacLeodCN, MurrayCA, . Clinical Monitoring of Tooth Wear Progression in Patients over a Period of One Year Using CAD/CAM. Int J Prosthodont.2017;30(2).
7.
LiuX, LiuJ, MaoH, TanJ.A digital technique for replicating peri-implant soft tissue contours and the emergence profile. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2017;118(3):264–7.
8.
HarrisBT, MonteroD, GrantGT, MortonD, LlopDR, LinW-S.Creation of a 3-dimensional virtual dental patient for computer-guided surgery and CAD-CAM interim complete removable and fixed dental prostheses: A clinical report. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2017;117(2): 197–204.
9.
AbduoJ, LyonsK, BennamounM.Trends in Computer-Aided Manufacturing in Prosthodontics: A Review of the Available Streams. Int J Dent.2014;2014:783948.
10.
YauH, YangT, LinY.Comparison of 3-D Printing and 5-axis Milling for the Production of Dental e-models from Intra-oral Scanning. Computer-Aided Design and Applications.2016;13(1):32–8.
11.
The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms.J Prosthet Dent. 117(5): e1–e105.
12.
JodaT, ZaroneF, FerrariM.The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC oral health.2017;17(1):124.
13.
TranD, NesbitM, PetridisH.Survey of UK dentists regarding the use of CAD/CAM technology. Br Dent J.2016;221(10): 639–44.
14.
BlackwellE, NesbitM, PetridisH.Survey on the use of CAD-CAM technology by UK and Irish dental technicians. Br Dent J.2017;222(9):689–93.
15.
ChathamC, SpencerMH, WoodDJ, JohnsonA.The introduction of digital dental technology into BDS curricula. Br Dent J.2014;217(11):639–42.
16.
YuzbasiogluE, KurtH, TuruncR, BilirH.Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC oral health.2014;14(1):10.
17.
GjelvoldB, ChrcanovicBR, KordunerE-K, Collin-BagewitzI, KischJ.Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Prosthodont.2016;25(4):282–7.
18.
SchepkeU, MeijerHJA, KerdijkW, CuneMS.Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2015;114(3):403–6.e1.
19.
JodaT, BräggerU.Patient centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res.2016;27(12).
20.
WismeijerD, MansR, van GenuchtenM, ReijersHA.Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res.2014;25(10):1113–8.
21.
GrünheidT, McCarthySD, LarsonBE.Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2014;146(5):673–82.
22.
BurhardtL, LivasC, KerdijkW, van der MeerWJ, RenY.Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2016;150(2):261–7.
23.
KattadiyilMT, JekkiR, GoodacreCJ, BabaNZ.Comparison of treatment outcomes in digital and conventional complete removable dental prosthesis fabrications in a predoctoral setting. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2015;114(6):818–25.
24.
SaponaroPC, YilmazB, JohnstonW, HeshmatiRH, McGlumphyEA.Evaluation of patient experience and satisfaction with CAD-CAM-fabricated complete dentures: A retrospective survey study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2016;116(4):524–8.
25.
LeeSJ, MacArthurRX, GallucciGO.An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2013;110(5):420–3.
26.
JodaT, LenherrP, DedemP, KovaltschukI, BraggerU, ZitzmannNU.Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016:n/a-n/a.
27.
MartiAM, HarrisBT, MetzMJ, MortonD, ScarfeWC, MetzCJ, . Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology. Eur J Dent Educ.2017;21(3):200–5.
28.
LimJ-H, ParkJ-M, KimM, HeoS-J, MyungJ-Y.Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017.
AhrbergD, LauerHC, AhrbergM, WeiglP.Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig.2016;20(2):291–300.
31.
BenicGl, MühlemannS, FehmerV, HämmerleCHF, SailerI.Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2016;116(5):777–82.
32.
HackGD, PatzeltSB.Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. ADA Professional Product Review.2015;10(4):1–5.
33.
RenneW, LudlowM, FrymlJ, SchurchZ, MennitoA, KesslerR, . Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2017;118(1):36–42.
34.
GuthJ-F, RunkelC, BeuerF, StimmelmayrM, EdelhoffD, KeulC.Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig.2017;21(5):1445–55.
35.
EnderA, ZimmermannM, AttinT, MehlA.In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig.2016;20(7): 1495–504.
36.
EnderA, AttinT, MehlA.In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2016;115(3):313–20.
37.
FlüggeTV, SchlagerS, NelsonK, NahlesS, MetzgerMC.Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2013;144(3):471–8.
38.
Jeongl-D, LeeJ-J, JeonJ-H, KimJ-H, KimH-Y, KimW-C.Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2016;115(6):755–9.
39.
ChoS-H, SchaeferO, ThompsonGA, GuentschA.Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.2015;113(4):310–5.
40.
VecseiB, Joós-KovácsG, BorbélyJ, HermannP.Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems–An in vitro study. Journal of prosthodontic research.2017;61(2):177–84.
41.
ImburgiaM, LogozzoS, HauschildU, VeronesiG, ManganoC, ManganoFG.Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC oral health.2017;17(1):92.
42.
AhmedKE, WhittersJ, JuX, PierceSG, MacLeodC, MurrayCA.A proposed methodology to assess the accuracy of 3D scanners, casts, and monitor tooth wear progression in patients. Int J Prosthodont.2016;29(5):514–21.
43.
ChochlidakisKM, PapaspyridakosP, GeminianiA, ChenC-J, FengIJ, ErcoliC.Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and metaanalysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.2016;116(2): 184–90. e12.
44.
TsirogiannisP, ReissmannDR, HeydeckeG.Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and metaanalysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.2016;116(3):328–35. e2.
45.
ZeltnerM, SailerI, MühlemannS, ÖzcanM, HämmerleCH, BenicGI.Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.2017;117(3):354–62.
46.
SailerI, MakarovNA, ThomaDS, ZwahlenM, PjeturssonBE.All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater.2015;31(6):603–23.
47.
PjeturssonBE, SailerI, MakarovNA, ZwahlenM, ThomaDS.All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs. Dent Mater.2015;31(6):624–39.
48.
MonacoC, LlukacejA, BaldissaraP, ArenaA, ScottiR.Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent. 2017.
49.
TeichmannM, GöcklerF, WeberV, YildirimM, WolfartS, EdelhoffD.Ten-year survival and complication rates of lithium-disilicate (Empress 2) tooth-supported crowns, implant-supported crowns, and fixed dental prostheses. J Dent.2017;56(Supplement C):65–77.
50.
WorniA, KatsoulisJ, KolgeciL, WorniM, Mericske-SternR.Monolithic zirconia reconstructions supported by teeth and implants: 1 - to 3-year results of a case series. Quintessence Int.2017;48(6):459–67.
51.
BömickeW, RammelsbergP, StoberT, SchmitterM.Short-Term Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic and Partially Veneered Zirconia Single Crowns. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry.2017;29(1):22–30.
52.
SulaimanTA, AbdulmajeedAA, DonovanTE, CooperLF, WalterR.Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.2016;116(3):436–9.
53.
ChengC.Randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the metal-ceramic and modified monolithic zirconia implant-supported single crowns: a preliminary result. 2016.
