Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Versus CAD/CAM Milled Onlays

Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Versus CAD/CAM Milled Onlays Over a Period of One Year: a Randomized Clinical Trial

The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing.

Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials.

Although additive manufacturing has been known since the 1980s, its application in dentistry is relatively new and not fully studied with limited research and in vivo studies on their clinical performance.

Inclusion Criteria:

Age: 25-45 years.

• Males or females.
• Participants with carious vital ower molars indicated for onlay (one or two missing cusps)
• Patients with at least 20 teeth under occlusion.
• Good oral hygiene.
• Co-operative patients approving to participate in the trial.
• Have sufficient cognitive ability to understand consent procedures.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Participants with parafunctional habits or bruxism.
• Participants with systemic diseases or disabilities that may affect participation.
• Heavy smoking.
• Pregnancy.
• Lack of compliance.
• Severe or active periodontal disease.
• Cognitive impairment.