Page 22 - CEREC Q2 | 2014

20 | CERECDOCTORS.COM | QUARTER 2 | 2014
| | | N O VA K , FA S B I N D E R , N E I VA
of the time, they indicated they would
have the laboratory fabricate the resto-
rations with only 2 percent using CERC
Connect to transmit the case to the
laboratory.
Military dentists reported a signifi-
cantly lower use of the CEREC system
for crowns and veneers compared to
dentists in private practice: they would
select the CEREC crown about half as
often. Military dentists reported using
the CEREC system 36 percent of the
time for crowns for posterior teeth
and 21 percent of the time for crowns
for anterior teeth. Military dentists
reportedusing theCEREC systemmini-
mally for more esthetic or multiple-
unit cases when compared to private-
practice dentists. Only 10 percent of
the time did military dentists indicate
they would complete veneers for one
or two anterior teeth with the CEREC
system in a single appointment, with no
military dentists indicating they would
complete one or two veneers with the
CEREC system in two appointments.
When asked about their preferred
technique for three or more anterior
crowns or veneers, only 3 percent indi-
cated they would complete the resto-
rations at the same appointment, with
an additional 3 percent indicating they
would complete three or more ante-
rior restorations on the same day. Only
1 percent of the military dentists indi-
cated they would complete the anterior
restorations at a second appointment
using the CEREC system.
And, 92 percent of the time, military
dentists indicated they would have
the laboratory fabricate the restora-
tions with only 1 percent using CEREC
Connect to transmit the case to the
laboratory.
Private-practice dentists indicated
they would complete three or more
posterior crowns using the CEREC
system 57 percent of the time in a single
appointment and 26 percent on the
same day. In addition, 8 percent indi-
cated they would deliver the crowns
using the CEREC system at a second
appointment. Only 9 percent of this
particular group of private-practice
dentists indicated they would have the
laboratory fabricate the crowns with
only 1 percent using CEREC Connect to
transmit the case to the laboratory and
8 percent using traditional impression
techniques.
It would appear that, although a
very large portion of private practice
dentists use intraoral digital scan-
ning routinely as evidenced by their
use of the CEREC system, it is still not
a preferred technique for transmit-
ting cases to the dental laboratory (as
evidenced by the relatively low use of
the CEREC Connect system).
This may also be due to the fact that
a case must be originally planned in
CEREC Connect software for it to be
sent to the lab using the system. Realis-
tically, doctors may end up starting the
cases in CEREC 4.2 software and later
deciding to have the case completed
by a laboratory technician. This would
require a physical impression, as a case
cannot be exported from CEREC 4.2 to
CEREC Connect.
Military dentists selected CEREC
crowns for posterior teeth (36
percent) only slightly more
often than laboratory fabri-
cated PFM (30 pecent) and
gold crowns (22 percent).
Of the 65 military dentists
that responded to the
survey, 72 percent answered
that, when a posterior tooth
requires replacement of one
cusp, their treatment of choice
would be amalgam. In contrast, only
2 percent (n=4) in the private practice
group chose to treat this situation with
an amalgam restoration.
The treatment of choice in the
private practice group to replace one
cusp on a posterior tooth was a CEREC
restoration (83 percent). Both options
allow the restoration to be completed
in a single appointment.
Similar differences in treatment
choices to replace multiple cusps on a
posterior tooth were obvious between
the two groups of dentists. In the
private practice setting, 97 percent
of private practice dentists (n=185)
elected for a CEREC restoration, while
only 43 percent of the dentists in the
military group (n=29) chose a CEREC
restoration for a similar indication.
One reason for this difference may
be attributed to the emphasis placed
on amalgam in the military as opposed
to private practice. Amalgam has been
considered the definitive restora-
tion for larger restorations in military
clinics for many years, and it may take
a few more years for a total paradigm
shift.
CONCLUSION
Clinical setting, dental experience and
familiarity with the CEREC software
system were significant influences in a
dentist’s adaptation and application of
the CEREC system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investigators would like to
thank cerecdoctors.com as
well as the United States
Navy Dental Corp for
their help in the distri-
bution of the survey.
And thank you to all
dentists who completed
the survey for this
investigation.
REFERENCES
1 Department of the Navy Standards of Oral Health
Care. BUMEDINST 6600.16. 2009 JAN22.
2 Poticny DJ, Klim J. CAD/CAM in-office technology:
innovations after 25 years for predicatable, esthetic
outcomes. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;
141 Supple2:5S-9S.
3 Mörmann W. The evolution of the CEREC system.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Sep;137 Suppl:7S-13S