CAD/CAM Technology in Dentistry: A Comparative Analysis of Milling and 3D Printing Techniques
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/4bserq28Keywords:
CAD/CAM technology, Dental restorations, Milling, 3D printing, Clinical efficiencyAbstract
This review compares CAD/CAM technology in dentistry, focusing on milling and 3D printing regarding precision, material performance, clinical applications, and efficiency. Milling, a subtractive process, is renowned for its high precision, durability, and ability to produce restorations like crowns, bridges, and veneer that require long-term stability. In contrast, 3D printing, an additive process, offers greater design flexibility and efficiency, especially in the fabrication of temporary and complex restorations. The findings show that both methods are essential in modern dental practice, but the choice between milling and 3D printing depends on the specific clinical needs, the type of restoration, and advancements in material technology. Future research should prioritize the development of new composite materials that balance the durability of milled ceramics with the flexibility of printable resins. Additionally, investigating the integration of real-time feedback systems during the 3D printing process could further enhance precision in dental restorations. Exploring these avenues will help create more effective solutions tailored to diverse clinical needs.
References
[1] M. Y. Abdelfattah, N. Al Humayyani, F. K. Alwthinani, et al. In vitro evaluation of the mechanical and optical properties of 3D printed vs CAD/CAM milled denture teeth materials. The Saudi Dental Journal, 2024, 36(9): 1227–1232.
[2] M. Oleksy, K. Dynarowicz, and D. Aebisher. Rapid Prototyping Technologies: 3D Printing Applied in Medicine. Pharmaceutics, 2023, 15(8): 2169.
[3] A. Delantoni and K. Orhan. Digital Dentistry: An Overview and Future Prospects. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024: 47.
[4] J. Kastyl, Z. Chlup, P. Stastny, et al. Machinability and properties of zirconia ceramics prepared by gelcasting method. Advances in Applied Ceramics, 2020, 119(5–6): 252–260.
[5] T. Joda, F. Zarone, and M. Ferrari. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health, 2017, 17(1): 124.
[6] A. Delantoni and K. Orhan, eds. Digital Dentistry: An Overview and Future Prospects. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020: 117.
[7] V. Bhati, V. Kapoor, N. Pasricha, et al. A comparative evaluation of marginal fit and microleakage of computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing-milled zirconia and prefabricated posterior occlusal veneers: An in vitro study. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2024, 24(3): 233–239.
[8] T. Özberk and İ. Karakaya. The use of additive manufacturing technologies in restorative dentistry. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences, 2024, 9(2): 76–83.
[9] J. Lee, S. Ju, J. Kim, et al. The comparison of the accuracy of temporary crowns fabricated with several 3D printers and a milling machine. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, 2023, 15(2): 72–79.
[10] M. Reinhard, H. Andreas, and K. Marcel. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated bite splints: milling vs 3D printing. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2020, 24(12): 4607–4615. Dean&Francis ISSN 2959-409X
[11] C. Herpel, A. Tasaka, S. Higuchi, et al. Accuracy of 3D printing compared with milling - A multi-center analysis of tryin dentures. Journal of Dentistry, 2021, 110: 103681.
[12] N. Kalberer, A. Mehl, M. Schimmel, et al. CAD-CAM milled versus rapidly prototyped (3D-printed) complete dentures: An in vitro evaluation of trueness. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2019, 121(4): 637–643.
[13] H. Dewan. Clinical Effectiveness of 3D-Milled and 3D-Printed Zirconia Prosthesis - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomimetics (Basel), 2023, 8(5): 394.
[14] B. E. Pjetursson, U. Brägger, N. P. Lang, et al. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2007, 18(Suppl. 3): 97–113.
[15] R. Marcel, H. Reinhard, and K. Andreas. Accuracy of CAD/ CAM-fabricated bite splints: milling vs 3D printing. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2020, 24(12): 4607–4615.
[16] M. A. Alghauli, A. Y. Alqutaibi, S. Wille, et al. The physicalmechanical properties of 3D-printed versus conventional milled zirconia for dental clinical applications: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2024, 156: 106601.
[17] N. Sartori, S. A. Sanchez, D. Oliveira, et al. Flexural properties and fatigue limit of 3D-printed and milled resin-based materials. Journal of Prosthodontics, 2024.
[18] N. Sartori, S. A. Sanchez, D. Oliveira, et al. CAD- CAM complete removable dental prostheses: A double-blind, randomized, crossover clinical trial evaluating milled and 3D-printed dentures. Journal of Prosthodontics, 2024, March.
[19] A. Delantoni and K. Orhan. Digital Dentistry: An Overview and Future Prospects. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024: 103.
[20] M. Alghauli, A. Y. Alqutaibi, S. Wille, et al. 3D-printed versus conventionally milled zirconia for dental clinical applications: Trueness, precision, accuracy, biological and esthetic aspects. Journal of Dentistry, 2024, 144: 104925.
[21] S. Mukai, E. Mukai, J. A. Santos-Junior, J. A. Shibli, M. Faveri, and G. Giro. Assessment of the reproducibility and precision of milling and 3D printing surgical guides. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1): 1.
[22] B. Camargo, E. Willems, W. Jacobs, K. Van Landuyt, M. Peumans, F. Zhang, J. Vleugels, and B. Van Meerbeek. 3D printing and milling accuracy influence full-contour zirconia crown adaptation. Dental Materials, 2022, 38(12): 1963–1976.
[23] S. A. Mosaddad, J. Peláez, R. A. Panadero, S. Ghodsi, M. Akhlaghian, and M. J. Suárez. Do 3D-printed and milled tooth-supported complete monolithic zirconia crowns differ in accuracy and fit? A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
