Page 20 - CEREC Q2 | 2014

18 | CERECDOCTORS.COM | QUARTER 2 | 2014
FIG. 3A | DENTISTS WITH LIMITED CLINICAL EXPERIENCE WITH CEREC
90% crowns, 10% inlays/onlays
75% crowns, 25% inlays/onlays
50% crowns, 50% inlays/onlays
25% crowns, 75% inlays/onlays
10% crowns, 90% inlays/onlays
Do not currently use CEREC
MILITARY #17 | NON-MILITARY #9 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0%
FIG. 3B | DENTISTS COMPETENT IN THE USE OF CEREC
90% crowns, 10% inlays/onlays
75% crowns, 25% inlays/onlays
50% crowns, 50% inlays/onlays
25% crowns, 75% inlays/onlays
10% crowns, 90% inlays/onlays
Do not currently use CEREC
MILITARY #25 | NON-MILITARY #65 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0%
FIG. 3C | DENTISTS PROFICIENT IN THE USE OF CEREC AND/OR TEACH COURSES
90% crowns, 10% inlays/onlays
75% crowns, 25% inlays/onlays
50% crowns, 50% inlays/onlays
25% crowns, 75% inlays/onlays
10% crowns, 90% inlays/onlays
Do not currently use CEREC
MILITARY #18 | NON-MILITARY #112 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0%
| | | N O VA K , FA S B I N D E R , N E I VA
primarily crown application of CEREC
in private practice have been proposed,
including easier reimbursement for
crowns than inlays/onlays and more effi-
cient clinical workflow. However, in the
military clinic, financial reimbursement
for dental services is not an issue — yet
the trend toward a significantly greater
application for crowns is similar. A
possible explanation for this ismay be the
extended delays in the time crowns are
returned frommilitary dental labs: delays
of six to eight weeks for single crowns
are not uncommon. Figure 2 shows the
general application of the CEREC system
based upon clinical setting.
RESULTS: CEREC FAMILIARITY
Figures 3a, 3b and 3c compare the appli-
cation of the CEREC system based upon
clinical setting and dentist familiarity
with the technology. Those dentists from
private practice (n=5) and military (n=5)
clinic settings who responded that they
“have heard of the CEREC technology
and/or attended a CE course, but do not
use it clinically” were not included in this
data set. It should also be noted that some
dentists in both groups reported that they
are not currently using the technology.
However, they are very familiar with
it, and have used the CEREC system in
the past.
Themajority of responders in this cate-
gory are from military dentists, so this
response may be due to them currently
being stationed at a military clinic that
does not have the CEREC system.
It can be noted from the data that, as
previously mentioned, regardless of
which environment a dentist practices
in, or however many years of dental and
CEREC experience they may have, the
CEREC system tends to be used more
often for crowns than it is for inlays and
onlays. In general, military and private-
practice dentists with limited clinical
experience using the CEREC system
were divided more evenly between using
FIG. 2 | GENERAL APPLICATION OF CEREC SYSTEM BASED ON CLINICAL SETTING
90% crowns, 10% inlays/onlays
75% crowns, 25% inlays/onlays
50% crowns, 50% inlays/onlays
25% crowns, 75% inlays/onlays
10% crowns, 90% inlays/onlays
Do not currently use CEREC
MILITARY #65 | NON-MILITARY #191 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
it primarily for crowns versus using it
primarily for inlays/onlays.
When comparing the limited-experi-
ence group to those who responded they
were “competent in the use of CEREC
technology,” the majority of both the
private practice and military dentists
chose to use the system for crowns
(crowns were used 90 percent of the time
and inlays/onlays 10 percent of the time).
This was also true of the most proficient
CEREC users in both groups. There was
no major difference in application of the
technology between the “competent”
and “proficient and/or trainer” group of
dentists regardless of the clinical setting.