Purpose To investigate the effect of different milling protocols for different ceramic materials on the trueness and precision of milled ceramic crowns. Materials and Methods A definitive impression from a patient requiring a ceramic crown was used to fabricate forty glass ceramic crowns (VITABLOCS mark II, Vita Zahnfabrik) milled with wet, hard milling protocol, and 40 zirconia crowns (inCoris TZI, Dentsply, Sirona) milled with dry, soft milling protocol, using a 5‐axis milling machine (inLab MC X5; Dentsply Sirona). Trueness and precision for different crown areas were evaluated with a 3D evaluation software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems). Statistical analysis was performed between the 2 crown types with independent t‐test, and analysis of variances followed by Bonferroni tests among crown areas for each crown. Results All areas of the glass ceramic crowns had higher trueness than the zirconia crown areas (p < 0.05). Crown areas of each crown type had significantly different trueness values (p < 0.001, F = 175.17 for glass crowns, p < 0.001, F = 35.04 for zirconia crowns). Glass crowns had 3.78 µm precision, while zirconia crowns had 4.12 µm precision, with a precision difference range between the 2 types of crowns from 0.32 µm for the inner surface to 6.5 µm for the marginal surface. Conclusions Type of ceramic material and milling protocol affected trueness of the milled crown, with higher trueness for the hardmilled glass crowns than the soft milled zirconia crowns. Soft milled zirconia crowns were generally overmilled in comparison with the reference design and glass crowns. However, glass crowns exhibited more undermilling in thin and deep areas. The crown area affected trueness, with external areas having better trueness than internal areas. The 5‐axis milling machine had high precision, which was minimally affected by the ceramic type, milling protocol, or crown area.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of using additive manufacturing (AM) for dental ceramic fabrication in comparison with subtractive manufacturing (SM), and to evaluate the effect of the type of AM technology on dental ceramic fabrication. Materials and methods: A search was conducted electronically in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Cochran Library databases, and also by other methods (table of contents screening, backward and forward citations, and grey literature search) up to February 12, 2022, to identify records evaluating additive manufacturing of ceramics for dental purposes in comparison with subtractive manufacturing. A minimum of 2 review authors conducted tstudy selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Quality assessment was performed with Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and the quantitative synthesis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program (CMA, Biostat Inc). Hedges's g for effect size was calculated, with 0.2 as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large. Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 and prediction interval (PI) statistics. Publication bias was investigated with funnel plots and grey literature search. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results: A total of 28 studies were included for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis; 11 in vitro studies on accuracy, 1 in vivo study on color, and 16 in vitro studies on physical and mechanical properties. Meta-analysis showed overall higher accuracy for SM compared with AM, with medium effect size (0.679, CI: 0.173 to 1.185, p = 0.009) and also for marginal (g = 1.05, CI: 0.344 to 1.760, p = 0.004), occlusal (g = 2.24, CI: 0.718 to 3.766, p = 0.004), and total (g = 4.544, CI: -0.234 to 9.323, p = 0.062) with large effect size; whereas AM had higher accuracy than SM with small effect size for the external (g = -0.238, CI: -1.215 to 0.739), p = 0.633), and internal (g = -0.403, CI: -1.273 to 0.467, p = 0.364) surfaces. For technology, self-glazed zirconia protocol had the smallest effect size (g = -0.049, CI: -0.878 to 0.78, p = 0.907), followed by stereolithography (g = 0.305, CI: -0.289 to 0.9, p = 0.314), and digital light processing (g = 1.819, CI: 0.662 to 2.976, p = 0.002) technologies. Flexural strength was higher for ceramics made by SM in comparison to AM with large effect size (g = -2.868, CI: -4.371 to -1.365, p < 0.001). Only 1 study reported on color, favoring ceramics made through combined AM and SM. Conclusions: Subtractive manufacturing had better overall accuracy, particularly for the marginal and occlusal areas, higher flexural strength, and more favorable hardness, fracture toughness, porosity, fatigue, and volumetric shrinkage; whereas AM had

Purpose To evaluate the effect of repetitive milling on the surface roughness of ceramic crowns. Materials and Methods Twenty feldspathic ceramic crowns (VITABLOCS Mark II; Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) milled with hard milling protocol, and 20 zirconia crowns (5Y‐TZP, inCoris TZI; Dentsply Sirona, York, PA) milled with soft milling protocol, using a 5‐axis milling machine (inLab MC X5; Dentsply Sirona) were investigated. Atomic force microscopy (SPM SmartSPM™‐1000) was used for surface roughness measurements (Ra, RMS). Pearson correlation between bur deterioration percentage as provided by the software of the milling machine and surface roughness was performed with an (r) range between 1 and –1. Trend analysis between the 2‐half and among the 4‐quarter bur lifetime was performed with linear contrast analysis and partial eta squared (η) for estimate of effect size. Analysis of mean variance between the zirconia and feldspathic ceramic groups was performed with a t‐test, with α = 0.05. Results Correlation analysis showed small correlation for Ra, RMS (r = –0.02, –0.16 for the feldspathic ceramic crowns and r = 0.044, 0.034 for the zirconia crowns), and no significant differences for the 2‐half and 4‐quarter groups (p > 0.05) for both crown types. Estimate of effect size was rated as medium for the 2‐half groups (Ra = 0.420, RMS = 0.395) and large for the 4‐quarter groups (RA = 0.22, F = 1.48, RMS = 0.19, F = 1.26) for the feldspathic ceramic crowns, and small effect size for the 2‐half groups (Ra = 0.18, RMS = 0.20) and the 4‐quarter groups (Ra = 0.035, RMS = 0.037) for the zirconia crowns. There was no significant difference (p = 0.178, F = 0.016. p = 0.088, F = 0.002) between the feldspathic ceramic and zirconia crowns with medium and large effect size (0.45, 0.57) for RA and RMS. Conclusions Milling zirconia and feldspathic ceramic crowns had small correlation between bur deterioration and surface roughness when the burs were used within their recommended lifetime. However, hard milled feldspathic ceramic crowns had higher surface roughness than the soft milled zirconia crowns. Bur deterioration had a larger effect on the surface roughness of the feldspathic ceramic crowns than the zirconia crowns.