This study aimed to evaluate the needs of dentists, dental technicians, dental hygienists, and dental-related workers in terms of dental computer-aided design (CAD) software and artificial intelligence (AI). Based on a factor analysis, 57 survey items were assigned to six categories: (a) considerations when purchasing dental CAD software; (b) prosthesis design process; (c) dental CAD function; (d) use of AI dental CAD crown and denture design; (e) impact of AI; and (f) improvements in AI features. Overall, 93 participants were included in the study, and the reliability of the resultant survey data was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Statistically significant factors in each category were identified using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (α = 0.05). The results revealed that design quality, design convenience and reproducibility, margin line setting, and automatic margin setting were considered most important in their respective categories (p < 0.05). There were also significant differences in the importance of certain items, such as branding importance and functional diversity, among different dental personnel groups (p < 0.05). Design speed and convenience were also found to be more important to dentists and dental hygienists compared to other dental personnel (p < 0.05). The importance of specific survey items varied significantly based on age, dental personnel, and work experience groups. Dental personnel, such as dentists and dental technicians, assigned greater importance to certain factors, such as branding, functional diversity, design speed, and compatibility with CAM equipment, compared to other occupational groups.

Gyu-Ri Kim, Keunbada Son, Kyu-Bok Lee. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2025;41:198-208. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2025.41.3.198

Gyu-Ri Kim, Keunbada Son, Du-Hyeong Lee, So-Yeun Kim, Myoung-Uk Jin, Kyu-Bok Lee. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2023;39:105-18. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2023.39.3.105

This clinical study evaluated the effect of build angle (0°, 45°, and 90°) in digital light processing (DLP) printing on the trueness and chairside adjustment of zirconia crowns and compared these outcomes with conventionally milled crowns. Ten patients each received one milled zirconia crown and three DLP-printed zirconia crowns fabricated at 0°, 45°, and 90° build angles (40 crowns total; four crowns per patient). Trueness was calculated as the root mean square (RMS) surface deviation between intraoral scans of the crowns and the CAD design. Occlusal and intaglio adjustments were quantified as the RMS deviation between pre- and post-adjustment scans. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with manufacturing method as a fixed effect and patient as a random intercept to account for within-patient clustering. Post hoc comparisons were performed using Tukey-adjusted pairwise contrasts of estimated marginal means (α = .05). Manufacturing method significantly influenced trueness in the primary linear mixed-effects model (χ² = 20.689, P = .001). Tukey-adjusted contrasts showed lower RMS for the 0° group (49.0 µm) than for the 45° group (63.3 µm; P = .033), 90° group (70.5 µm; P = .003), and milled group (66.2 µm; P = .012). Manufacturing method also affected occlusal adjustment (χ² = 13.904, P = .003) and intaglio adjustment (χ² = 28.624, P < .001). The milled group required more occlusal adjustment than the 0° group (P = .011), and greater intaglio adjustment than all DLP-printed groups (all P ≤ .004). Compared with milling, DLP-printed zirconia crowns demonstrated greater trueness (lower RMS) and required less chairside adjustment. Under the tested conditions, a 0° build angle was associated with the lowest trueness RMS and the least adjustment requirements.

This in vitro study compared the physicomechanical properties and crown fracture load (CFL) of three additively manufactured (AM) resins for definitive crowns (C&B Permanent [CB], CROWNTEC [CT], and VarseoSmile Crown plus [VS]), a milled resin composite (SHOFU HC [HC]), and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (Rosetta SM [RSM]). The degree of conversion (DC) was assessed for AM resins (n = 5 per material); flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), tensile strength (TS), compressive strength (CS), CFL, and Vickers hardness number (VHN) were assessed for all materials (n = 10 per material). Welch analysis of variance and Games–Howell comparisons were used, with Holm adjustment across seven omnibus tests (α = 0.05). All omnibus comparisons remained significant after adjustment (p < 0.001). CB and VS exhibited higher DC than CT. All measured DC values exceeded 60%, although this alone does not establish clinical adequacy. RSM exhibited the highest FS, FM, CS, and VHN, whereas CB exhibited the highest TS and CFL. Standardized specimen tests ranked the materials differently than crown fracture testing. Material selection should integrate standardized properties with restoration-level evidence. These product- and protocol-specific static results do not establish clinical indications or predict long-term survival.