Journal List > J Adv Prosthodont > v.9(6) > 1054446

Lambert, Durand, Jacquot, and Fages: Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art


The wide use of chairside CAD/CAM restorations has increased the diversity of the restorative material. For the practitioner, the selection of the appropriate material is difficult amongst the variety offered by the market. Information on the characteristics of the products can be difficult to assess due to the lack of up-to-date classification and the lack of reliability of manufacturer's advertising. The purpose of this article is to structure the data on restorative materials provided by various sources in order for the practitioner to choose the product most suited to the clinical situation. The objective is to classify chairside CAD/CAM materials and to define their characteristics and indications.


The first chairside CAD/CAM1 produced inlay was made in 1985 using a ceramic block comprising fine grain feldspathic ceramic (Vita Mark I, Vita Zahnfabrik).2 Since the 80's, different systems have been developed, such as known CEREC. Systems have evolved through a series of software and hardware.34 The current systems offer a three-dimensional (3-D) design program and can fabricate inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, as well as three unit bridges and custom lithium disilicate implant abutments.5
Initially, materials had to be mechanically strong but also easily machinable. Feldspathic ceramics were well adapted for small occlusal inlays (CEREC I).2 Then, the desire to extend the indications of CAD/CAM restorations (onlays, crowns) has driven the practitioner to work with more mechanically resistant materials. Therefore, reinforced ceramic has been developed. To maintain rapid milling, some of them are offered at a pre-crystallized stage. A post-milling crystallization will be necessary to access the final shade and mechanical strength. The idea to propose softer materials less susceptible to brittle fracture was also developed. This is the resin class, much less mechanically resistant but which has the property of deforming before fracture, unlike ceramics.67 The next step was to increase the mechanical properties of these resins with the incorporation of ceramic particles. Currently, manufacturers try to combine the advantages of these two families of materials by providing a ceramic network infiltrated with resin polymers. Metal blocks are also available, but their existence and their use are today almost anecdotal.
Nowadays, manufacturers propose more than 20 blocks for a chairside use. Blocks are available in different size, shade, and translucence and can require a post milling treatment, which would be different according to the type of material. Practitioners may encounter problems choosing the right material for the clinical situation among this large range of material and the related commercial communication.
The objective of this article is to classify chairside CAD/CAM materials and to define their characteristics and indications.



Among the metals milled in fixed partial denture (FPDs), the main ones are cobalt-chromium alloys (CoCr) and titanium. For various reasons, including cost, precious metal alloys are not machined. Manufacturers are currently working on titanium blocks.
Blocks available are CoCr as pre-sintered form, which are very soft to enable rapid machining and low damages burs.
Information and science on these pre-sintered metals are currently limited.
These blocks are formed by metal powder compaction by isostatic pressure to obtain a solid but tender and soft material. To allow the required mechanical properties of the prosthetic piece, a post treatment is required. Sintering is a heat treatment with or without the application of external pressure, whereby a system of individual particles or a porous body modifies some of its properties in the sense of moving towards a state of maximum compactness.


Machined CoCr alloys have same indications than CoCr alloys formed by lost wax casting.
Its use is interesting in the case of thin reconstitution; however the lack of aesthetics of this material is a major flaw.
Manufacturers do not yet indicate achieving abutments.
The electrochemical corrosion phenomena between various metals must be taken into account when choosing the material, especially in case of metal restorations already present in the mouth. According to the literature, titanium is preferable for metal implant prosthesis.89
Metal frameworks and metal-ceramic restorations can be produced with these blocks. However, prosthetist intervention is required for the ceramic veneering. At this point, we are not within the framework of chairside CAD/CAM.


Amann Girrbach markets a block named Sintron, made of pre-sintered CoCr shaped by dry milling. Machining the block with water spray is impossible as it disintegrates upon contact with water. The manufacturer guarantees that machining is safe for the operator.
Dentsply marketed not long ago a block named Crypton. Contrary to Sintron, its milling needs a water and oil spray in a closed circuit to avoid the toxicity of CoCr microparticles suspended in air. The manufacturer takes this precaution because inhaling microparticles can be detrimental to people nearby.
Nowadays, there is no communication from manufacturers or literature on the harmfulness of CoCr particles suspended during machining, neither on why the Amann Girrbach CoCr disintegrates during the spray milling.


Blocks are not sintered during machining. The prosthetic piece obtained requires a post milling treatment. The sintering is carried out by thermal treatment under argon. Sintering causes shrinkage of the order of 10%, which must be anticipated by accurately designing slightly oversized parts, as with the pre-sintered zirconia.


Kelly proposes to consider ceramic as a “composite”, meaning a composition of two or more distinct entities1011 formed from a matrix (glass or polycrystalline) in which are incorporated additive elements called fillers in various quantity. It is either particles (crystal or glassy high melting point) or modified atoms, called “doping” for polycrystalline ceramic.1012 They improve mechanical properties (fillers) or stabilize polycrystalline structure (doping).
The glassy matrix defines the aesthetic properties of the ceramic. The higher the glass rate is, the greater the importance of translucency is, which will work best to imitate the properties of enamel and dentin.10 This glassy matrix permits the diffusion of light for translucency in depth. Mechanical properties decrease with the fragile glass phase but increase with the filler content. Inside the glassy matrix, the nature of filler would prevent the development of micro-fractures.
Many classifications of ceramics were proposed and used. Based on their microstructure, dental ceramics fall within three basic classes111213141516:
  • Predominantly glassy ceramics

  • Particle-filled glasses

  • Polycrystalline ceramics.

Today, predominantly glassy and particle-filled glasses represent almost all machinable ceramics for direct CAD/CAM. Recently, zirconia, under certain conditions, can also be machined chairside to realize monolithic restorations.
Therefore, an adjusted classification can be developed from Li & all most adapted to direct CAD/CAM:
  • Direct CAD/CAM glass ceramics

    • Feldspathic

    • Leucite-reinforced

    • Lithium disilicate reinforced

    • Zirconium oxide and lithium silicate reinforced

  • Direct CAD/CAM compatible polycristalline ceramics:

    • Zirconia

The two first sub-categories will be treated in the same paragraph because of their similar characteristics including their different microstructure (Fig. 1).

Direct CAD/CAM glass ceramics Feldspathic and leucite-reinforced ceramics


Feldspathic ceramics are obtained by simply mixing powder and water. A plasticized ceramic mixture is pressed and extruded through a nozzle to give its form. The blocks are then dried over several days before sintering.2 Glasses in dental ceramics derive principally from a group of mined minerals called feldspar and are based on silica (silicon oxide) and alumina (aluminum oxide), hence feldspathic porcelains belong to a family called aluminosilicate glasses. Glasses based on feldspar are extremely biocompatible.12
Leucite-reinforced are particle-filled glasses. Their microstructures differ by the presence of fillers incorporated in the glassy matrix. The first fillers to be used in dental ceramics contained particles of a crystalline mineral called leucite.12
There are two major benefits to use leucite as a filler choice for dental ceramics; the first intended and the second probably serendipitous. First, leucite was chosen because its index of refraction is very close to feldspathic glasses; an important match for maintaining some translucency. Second, leucite etches at a much faster rate than the base glass and it is this ‘selective etching’ that creates a myriad of tiny features for resin cements to enter, creating a good micromechanical bond.1112
Leucite-reinforced ceramics are formed in the glass state and then heat-treated to obtain a controlled and partial crystallization. This treatment allows the production of crystalline loads controlled devitrification of chemically homogeneous glass matrix and gives a fine grain structure, very homogeneous. This process is called “ceraming”.12
Feldspathic and leucite-reinforced ceramics have a significant proportion of glassy phase (55 to 70%), which gives them an important translucency, and thus, the aesthetic qualities superior to other ceramic.17 Dental ceramics that best mimic the optical properties of enamel and dentin are predominantly glassy materials.11 However, these particularities do not allow proper hiding of a discoloration stump or a metal inlay-core.
Mechanical properties of these ceramics are insufficient to withstand occlusal stresses in theory. Reconstructions machined into this material will be bonded to increase this force.1819


These ceramics, which have the most important aesthetic properties of chairside CAD/CAM blocks, are recommended for the realization of prosthetic restorations with high aesthetic impact. This material could be use to achieve veneers, crowns and partial crowns, and cavitary restorations.


Different manufacturers propose this material, in one block shade, or in 3 or 4 stratified shades within the same block (Fig. 2). A three-dimensional structure block with a “dentin core” and “enamel” shade that surround it is also available. The restoration is milled in the curvilinear gradient color thanks to CAD software. This type of block has been specifically developed for aesthetic anterior restorations.

Implementation and finish

There are different methods of finishing the milled ceramic reconstructions.
  • Mechanical polishing: in SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy), the polished surface is the smoothest surface compared with glazing and the natural tooth. Polishing can produce a smooth surface that can be more aesthetically similar to natural enamel than glazing.12

  • Glazing: using glazure allows to bring a natural shine, sometimes superior to a simple mechanical polishing. The heat treatment process and glazing improve the mechanical properties of the workpiece by possible micro-cracks obliteration caused by machining.20

  • Cut-back: the prosthetic piece is recessed on its vestibular portion and / or incisal, thanks to CAD software. This strategic area is then veneered to achieve personalization. This technique is recommended on anterior teeth with an important aesthetic expectation.

After glazing or polishing, there is a decrease of the abrading enamel facing ceramics. Enamel loss becomes almost equivalent to the material.21

Lithium disilicate, zirconium oxide and lithium silicate reinforced ceramics


They have the same biphasic structure than leucite-reinforced ceramics. However, the proportion of crystalline phase is increased. The glass matrix is reduced to 30% of the volume. Filler particles are grown inside the glass object, after the object has been formed. After machining, the glass object is given a special heat treatment, causing the precipitation and growth of crystallites within the glass. Since these fillers are derived chemically from atoms of the glass itself, the consequence is that the composition of the remaining glass is altered as well during this process (termed ‘ceraming’). Such particle-filled composites are called glassceramics.1112
This type of ceramic could be filled by:
  • Lithium disilicate

  • Lithium silicate and zirconium dioxide.

These ceramics have an improved flexural strength, with good optical properties, and several levels of translucency and shades. Their strength and structure allow a good resistance, not avoiding an initial fracture but rather avoiding the spread of the fracture. Indeed, it will take a much larger load, twice more compared to a conventional ceramic, to achieve a complete fracture.18
Their mechanical resistance is considerably increased when they are bonded to enamel, reaching 70% of the resistance of zirconia.22
Lithium disilicate glass ceramics are actually only available chairside with e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent).23 Blocks are milled in a pre-crystallized metasilicate phase. A final crystallization firing will dissolve metasilicate crystals, while disilicate crystals will undergo a reticulated growth, creating a kind of mesh arming the body of ceramics. This material has significant clinical experience.24
Zirconium oxide and lithium silicate glass ceramics (ZLS) are available in a pre-crystallized (easy to machine but with an intermediate color) or fully crystallized (more difficult machining but with the final shade). They contain 10% dissolved zirconium dioxide in a glassy phase of the ceramic and very fine lithium metasilicate and lithium disilicate crystals (average size: 0.5 – 0.7 µm).25 The formed crystals are 4 to 8 times smaller than lithium disilicate crystallites.25 This dual microstructure is achieved in a two-step process. The material is delivered in a pre-crystallized stage, containing only lithium metasilicate crystals. In its pre-crystallized phase, the material is easy to machine. After the watercooled milling process and the finishing of the restoration, the final dual lithium silicate microstructure is reached during an 8-minute firing process at 840℃.26 For the fully crystallized state, the firing process is not necessary. ZLS are more recent, but comparable with the clinically well-proven lithium disilicate glass ceramics.2325


This type of ceramic has high optical properties, with multiple levels of shade and translucency according manufacturers, achieving aesthetic prosthetic reconstructions.
They can be used to make monolithic restorations such as veneers, inlays, onlays, endocrowns, anterior and posterior crowns. Bridges of small extent in anterior are only achievable with lithium disilicate.
These materials are available to achieve implant abutments, but there is not enough clinical evidence to confirm this indication. This type of material seems very promising.
The lithium disilicate cannot be considered as a bridge infrastructure ceramics, as well as zirconia, despite its mechanical properties because these indications are more limited. It can be used as an aesthetic ceramic on ceramic or metal frame.


Different manufacturers offer this material (cf final tab), with a lot of shades and translucency.

Implementation and finish

According to the stage of crystallization of the block machined, the workpiece can require a post milling crystallization phase. Make-up and glazing can be realized before the heat treatment. Pre-crystallized can be bonded directly after machining, after a polishing step. If make-up is done, glaze firing is necessary despite the already crystallized stage.



Zirconia has the particular property to change its crystallographic form under stress. The transition phase is accompanied by a substantial increase in volume sufficient to lead to a catastrophic failure. The transformation allows to stop crack propagation, leading to high toughness.272829
The mechanical properties of zirconia are the highest ever reported for any dental ceramic. This may allow the realization of posterior FPD (Fixed Partial Denture) and permit a substantial reduction in core thickness. These capabilities are highly attractive, when strength and aesthetics are paramount.29 However, due to its microstructure, this ceramic cannot be bonded with conventional techniques.
Chairside CAD/CAM zirconia blocks are yttrium cation-doped tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (3Y-TZP). The restorations are processed either by soft machining of presintered blocks followed by sintering at high temperature, or by hard machining of fully sintered blocks.30 However, only pre-sintered blocks can be milled by chairside milling units, less sophisticated than those used in laboratory. Restorations produced by soft machining are sintered at a later stage, this process prevents the stress-induced transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic and leads to a final surface virtually free of monoclinic phase unless grinding adjustments are needed or sandblasting is performe.29


Full zirconia restorations, milled chairside, are very recent. There is limited clinical experience on this kind of restoration. It seems possible to realize crowns or small bridges (maximum 3 items). The microstructure of this material does not allow a conventional bonding protocol. Currently, no consensus exists regarding the best adhesion protocol for zirconia used in dentistry. MDP-based resin cements tend to present higher results than those of other cements.20
For manufacturers, this material requires a support, having no sharp corners, to avoid the risk of fractures. In vitro studies show that the surface condition is the main factor of antagonist abrasion. A polished zirconia piece would not be more abrasive than other dental ceramics.31
However, the aesthetics of this material is limited by the low translucency due to its microstructure and the absence of glassy matrix, and the risk of breakage of the dental support due to its very high mechanical properties is significant.
However, some monolithic zirconia may present an acceptable degree of translucency.26 Mean grain size influences translucency through the number of grain boundaries. Smaller grain sizes is leading to decreased translucency due to the larger number of grain boundaries. A larger grain size is therefore beneficial to mechanical properties but decreases the resistance to low-temperature degradation (LTD). The grain size is depending on sintering temperature and will also determine the amount of cubic phase and yttrium distribution, which has been shown to directly influence resistance to LTD.32

Implementation and finish

The prosthetic workpiece is machined slightly oversized to compensate the shrinkage during sintering. The computer software (CAD) manages the oversizing according to the information supplied by the manufacturers. This sintering lasts about 400 minutes in a sintering furnace that reach 1500℃. A glaze may then be necessary to characterize the prosthesis.


Different types of resins

There are 3 types of resins currently available (Fig. 3):
  • PMMA

  • Resin composite

  • Nanoceramics

PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate)


PMMA are composed of methyl methacrylate polymers without incorporation of fillers. This thermoplastic polymer is transparent. Pigments have been incorporated for use in dental technology.33 The lack of fillers gives them a low mechanical strength.


PMMA are indicated to achieve temporary restorations for a period of 6 months to 1 year. Its tender structure permits an easy and fast milling, with a less wear of the milling burs.
Depending on manufacturers, PMMA are appropriate to realize every type of temporary prostheses (veneers, inlay/onlay, crown, bridge).

Resin composites


There are materials composed of a matrix resin formed by monomers with incorporated inorganic fillers. Fillers improve the properties of resins. Mechanical and physical properties are favorably modified by the increase of the charge percentage. Shrinkage outlet is also reduced. Load size decrease improves the surface finish, aesthetics, and wears resistance.343536
The polymerization of composite resins is never complete. Some monomers are free or partly linked to the chain. The conversion rate is the proportion of monomers that reacts to the total initial number of monomers. Machinable composite blocks have an industrial production (polymerization under pressure up to several thousand bars) and a thermal polymerization.637 Conversion rate is then higher than 90% or even 95%. In comparison, a conventional chairside composite technique reaches a conversion of 50 – 60%.38 In dental laboratory, the rate would be increased to 70 – 80%.394041


Actually, there is only one resin composite proposed for chairside CAD/CAM. This is a temporary restorative material, with a clinical wearing period up to 3 years. Its milling is easy and fast as for PMMA, but charges incorporated in the PMMA matrix allow greater mechanical resistance than “classic PMMA”.
Veneers, inlay/onlay, anterior and posterior single crowns, as well as anterior and posterior bridges can be produced with this material. The flexural strength is 80 MPa.



Nanoceramics and resin composite have the same microstructure but in different proportions. They have a polymeric matrix and a filler of ceramic nanoparticles about 80% of weight. Moreover, fillers have size less than 100 nm. These fillers may be composed of conventional ceramic, polycrystalline ceramic (zirconia), or a combination of both.


Nanoceramics have characteristics similar to the natural tooth, whether for flexure (usually close to 200 MPa), compression (380 MPa), and abrasion (around 2 to 10 microns per year). The elasticity is around 15 GPa. These characteristics indicate these materials for single tooth restoration or small bridges, preferably in the posterior area. Make-up makes a possible use in the anterior sector. However, the matrix is a polymer that will wear faster than the ceramic, making it more abrasive than antagonists compared to a traditional ceramics.
These materials are indicated for veneers, inlay/onlay, anterior and posterior single crowns, anterior and posterior bridges.

Implementation and finish

These materials can be machined easily with their soft matrix, and work pieces require no post-milling treatment, except the possible make-up photopolymerization. A conventional bonding protocol is achievable for this type of materials.


However, the biocompatibility of materials containing resins is questionable, because possible release of monomers, as bisphenol-A.4243
These materials can be repaired directly in case of fracture of the initial prosthetic component. Simply to make a surface treatment protocol (alumina air abrasion, mechanical abrasion...), applying bonding, and realize a direct composite.44 This property is very interesting, especially for temporary restorations.
These materials are recent and there is only limited evidence of such material use. Some manufacturers gave some initial information and later on, after many failures reported by dentists, preferred to remove such data (3M, Lava Ultimate) or even remove the material from the market (3M, Paradigm MZ100).

PICN (Polymer-Infiltrated-Ceramic-Network material)


The PICN material combines the properties of ceramic and polymer. It consists of a hybrid structure with two interpenetrating networks of ceramic and polymer, a so-called double network hybrid (DNH).45 The fabrication process of this material requires two steps: first, a porous pre-sintered ceramic network is produced and conditioned by a coupling agent; second, this network is infiltrated with a polymer by capillary action.4647 Due to the fine structure of feldspar ceramic and the acrylate polymer network, this material has a similar abrasion, high flexural strength, and elasticity close to dentin.45 PICN has better wear resistance compared to composite resins.4546 This material has good bonding ability through its microstructure. Work pieces can be thin, restoration will not present burst, the interpenetration of the phases prevents crack propagation in the material.45
Since this material is recent, long-term in vivo studies are still in progress. The shade range is limited and there is no information on the durability regarding cervical areas or discolorations. Nevertheless, novel PICN materials are promising and further research should be performed.45


PICN is indicated for veneers, inlay/onlay, anterior and posterior single crowns, as well as implant prosthesis. However, such material is more appropriate for posterior reconstructions due to the lack of gradient shades, the aesthetic result being obtained by make-up.

Implementation and finish

This new material is easily machinable with a good level of precision. Furthermore, its structure allows low burs wears of the milling unit. No post milling thermal treatment is required, and a simple make-up can be achieved before bonding.


Actually, there is only one PICN material available, the VITA Enamic.


CAD/CAM monolithic restorations are fast and reliable.254849 The different block materials available allow the production of every type of prosthetic reconstruction (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4). However, none of these materials seems to have ideal clinical properties for universal applications. Intense research efforts are under way to promote the strength, aesthetics, accuracy and an ability to reliably bond to dental substrates.
These materials are accomplished on a structural level. However, there is a low clinical experience on recent material, so a cautious use is necessary. Some materials offered few years ago have been withdrawn from the market due to a high failure rate. A practitioner must choose the milling unit adapted to his work habits and his favorite restorative materials. On the other hand, improvements are necessary to standardize the block spindle, but also to enhance speed milling and, post-milling treatment.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Different types of ceramic blocks with different mandrels.

Fig. 2

Incisor crown milled in a 4 shades block.

Fig. 3

Different types of resin blocks with different mandrels.

Table 1

Characteristics and indications of Chairside CAD/CAM ceramics

Feldspathic and leucite-reinforced ceramics Lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide and lithium silicate Zirconia
Microstructure Glassy matrix + crystalline loads (Feldspath, Leucite) Glassy matrix + Lithium disilicate Zirconium oxide and lithium silicate Polycristalline
Flexural strength Low: 160 MPa before bonding High: 370 à 420 MPa before bonding Very high: 800 à 1200 MPa
Optic properties Excellent Good Medium/Weak
Bonding aptitude Excellent Excellent Medium/Weak
Indications Veneer
Onlay Overlay
Endo V-Prep
Onlay Overlay
Endo V-Prep
Bridge of small extent in the anterior
Advantage Clinical experience
Wide range (shades)
Clinical experience (e.max)
Mechanical strength
Wide range (shades, translucidity)
Mechanical strength
Disadvantage Relative fragility
Less light than conventional
feldspathic ceramic
Available blocks Mark II (Vita)
Triluxe/ Triluxe Forte (Vita)
Real Life (Vita)
Cerec bloc/ Cerec PC (Sirona)
Empress CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent)
e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent)
Suprinity/ Suprinity FC (Vita)
Celtra (Dentsply)
Bruxzir (Bruxzir)
YZ HT (Vita)
Table 2

Scientific data for chairside CAD/CAM ceramics

Ceramics Blocks available Biaxial strength (MPa) CTE (.10−6/K) Young modulus Density (g/cm3) Hardness Vickers
Feldspathic ceramics VMII
Cerec bloc
154 ± 15 9.4 ± 0.1 45 ± 0.5 2.44 ± 0.001 640 ± 20
Leucite-reinforced ceramic Empress CAD 160 17.5 62 Not specified 6200 MPa
Lithium Disilicate ceramic E.max CAD Precrystallized: 130 ± 30 Crystallized: 360 ± 30 10.45 ± 0.4 95 ± 5 2.5 ± 0.1 Precrystallized: 5400 ± 200 Crystallized: 5800 ± 200
Lithium silicate and zirconium oxide ceramics Suprinity Approx. 540 Approx. 12.3 Approx. 70 Not specified Approx. 7000 Mpa
Celtra duo Polished: 210 Glaze firing: 370 11.8 Approx. 70 2.6 700
Zirconia Bruxzir > 800 11 Not specified 6.05 Not specified
YZ HT Approx 1200 Approx. 10.5 Approx. 210 Approx. 6.05 12 Gpa
Table 3

Characteristics and indications of Chairside CAD/CAM resins

PMMA Resin composite Nanoceramic PICN
Microstructure Resin polymers Inorganic fillers in resin matrix Ceramic nanoparticles in resin matrix Ceramic network infiltrate of polymer
Flexural strength Very weak Weak Weak Weak
Optical properties Weak Weak Medium Medium
Bonding aptitude Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Indications Temporary restorations:
Bridge of small extent
Temporary restorations:
Bridge of small extent
Crown (except Lava Ultimate)
Bridge of small extent
Avantage Speed of implementation
Rapid milling
Direct composite reparation
Speed of implementation
Rapid milling
Direct composite reparation
Speed of implementation
Rapid milling
Direct composite reparation
Mechanical properties
Speed of implementation
Rapid milling
Mechanical properties
Disadvantage Esthetic Esthetic Sustainability
Esthetic +/−
Available blocs Telio CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent)
Sinergia block tempo Multi (Nobil Metal)
Sintodent (Sentis)
CAD Temp mono/multicolor (Vita) Ultimate (Lava)
Cerasmart (GC)
Ambarino High class (Creamed)
Shofu block HC (Shofu)
Enamic (Vita)
Table 4

Scientific data for chairside CAD/CAM resins

Block available Biaxial strength (MPa) CTE Young Modulus (MPa) Density Hardness Vickers (MPa) Water absorption (µg/mm3)
PMMA Telio CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) 130 ± 10 Not specified 3200 ± 300 Not specified 190 ± 5 < 28
Sinergia block tempo multi (Nobil Metal) > 100 Not specified 2200 Not specified Not specified 22
Sintodent (Sentis) Not specified Not specified Approx. 2800 Not specified Not specified Not specified
Resin composite CAD Temp (Vita) > 80 Not specified Approx. 15000 Not specified Not specified Complies with EN ISO 10 477 polymer based crown and bridges materials.
Nanoceramic Ultimate (Lava) 204 Not specified 12770 Not specified Not specified Not specified
Cerasmart (GC) 238 Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
Ambarino High Class (Creamed) 191 Not specified 13812 Not specified 815 < 5
Shofu block HC (Shofu) Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
PICN Enamic (Vita) 150–160 Not specified 30000 Not specified 2500 Not specified


1. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011; 55:559–570.
2. Li RW, Chow TW, Matinlinna JP. Ceramic dental biomaterials and CAD/CAM technology: state of the art. J Prosthodont Res. 2014; 58:208–216.
3. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clinical and SEM evaluation of allceramic chair-side CAD/CAM-generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111:163–169.
4. Vichi A, Sedda M, Del Siena F, Louca C, Ferrari M. Flexural resistance of Cerec CAD/CAM system ceramic blocks. Part 1: Chairside materials. Am J Dent. 2013; 26:255–259.
5. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2015; 7:57–70.
6. Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:529–534.
7. Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res. 2014; 93:1232–1234.
8. Oh KT, Kim KN. Electrochemical properties of suprastructures galvanically coupled to a titanium implant. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 70:318–331.
9. Tuna SH, Pekmez NO, Keyf F, Canli F. The electrochemical properties of four dental casting suprastructure alloys coupled with titanium implants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17:467–475.
10. Kelly JR. Dental ceramics: what is this stuff anyway? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:4S–7S.
11. Kelly JR. Dental ceramics: current thinking and trends. Dent Clin North Am. 2004; 48:513–530.
12. Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:84–96.
13. Giordano R 2nd. A comparison of all-ceramic restorative systems: Part 2. Gen Dent. 2000; 48:38–40. 43–45.
14. Deany IL. Recent advances in ceramics for dentistry. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1996; 7:134–143.
15. Kelly JR. Ceramics in Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry. Annu Rev Mater Sci. 1997; 27:443–468.
16. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28:227–235.
17. Vichi A, Carrabba M, Paravina R, Ferrari M. Translucency of ceramic materials for CEREC CAD/CAM system. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014; 26:224–231.
18. Bindl A, Lüthy H, Mörmann WH. Strength and fracture pattern of monolithic CAD/CAM-generated posterior crowns. Dent Mater. 2006; 22:29–36.
19. Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Ender A, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Wimmer T. Influence of cementation and cement type on the fracture load testing methodology of anterior crowns made of different materials. Dent Mater J. 2013; 32:888–895.
20. Özcan M, Bernasconi M. Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17:7–26.
21. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M. Wear of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: restorations, opposing cusps, and luting cements. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25:199–207.
22. Ma L, Guess PC, Zhang Y. Load-bearing properties of minimal-invasive monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia occlusal onlays: finite element and theoretical analyses. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:742–751.
23. Pieger S, Salman A, Bidra AS. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:22–30.
24. Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F. Lithium disilicate restorations fatigue testing parameters: A systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25:116–126.
25. Rinke S, Rödiger M, Ziebolz D, Schmidt AK. Fabrication of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic Restorations Using a Complete Digital Workflow. Case Rep Dent. 2015; 2015:162178.
26. Denry I, Kelly JR. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res. 2014; 93:1235–1242.
27. Subbarao EC. Zirconia - an overview Advances in Ceramics. American Ceram Soc. 1981; 1–24.
28. Kisi EH, Howard CJ. Crystal structures of zirconia phases and their inter-relation. Key Eng Mater. 1998; 153-4:1–36.
29. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:299–307.
30. Filser F, Kocher P, Gauckler LJ. Net-shaping of ceramic components by direct ceramic machining. Assem Autom. 2003; 23:382–390.
31. Daou EE. Esthetic Prosthetic Restorations: Reliability and Effects on Antagonist Dentition. Open Dent J. 2015; 9:473–481.
32. Chevalier J, Deville S, Münch E, Jullian R, Lair F. Critical effect of cubic phase on aging in 3mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics for hip replacement prosthesis. Biomaterials. 2004; 25:5539–5545.
33. Kojima Y, Matsuoka T, Takahashi H. Structure of poly (methyl methacrylate) synthesized under high pressure. J Mater Sci Lett. 2002; 21:473–475.
34. Van Noort R. An introduction to dental materials. Resin composites and polyacid-modified resin composites. Mosby Ltd.;2002. p. 96–123.
35. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives: Principles and techniques. Resins. PMPH-USA;2002. p. 111–125.
36. Rawls H, Esquivel-Upshaw J. Restorative resins. Phillip's Sci Dent Mater;2003. p. 399–441.
37. Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From Artisanal to CAD-CAM Blocks: State of the Art of Indirect Composites. J Dent Res. 2016; 95:487–495.
38. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, van Putten M. Two-body wear resistance and degree of conversion of laboratory-processed composite materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12:432–438.
39. Lovell LG, Newman SM, Bowman CN. The effects of light intensity, temperature, and comonomer composition on the polymerization behavior of dimethacrylate dental resins. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:1469–1476.
40. Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments for composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater. 1992; 8:290–295.
41. Bausch JR, de Lange C, Davidson CL. The influence of temperature on some physical properties of dental composites. J Oral Rehabil. 1981; 8:309–317.
42. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig. 2008; 12:1–8.
43. Goldberg M, Dimitrova-Nakov S, Schmalz G. BPA from dental resin material: where are we going with restorative and preventive dental biomaterials. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:347–349.
44. Wiegand A, Stucki L, Hoffmann R, Attin T, Stawarczyk B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:2007–2013.
45. Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S. Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J. 2013; 7:118–122.
46. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:564–569.
47. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:419–426.
48. Rocca GT, Bonnafous F, Rizcalla N, Krejci I. A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD/CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 104:273–275.
49. Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137:14S–21S.