Comparison of CAD/CAM and Conventional Techniques for Dental Restoration

Abstract

Background: The evolution of digital dentistry has transformed the process of restorative dentistry, with Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology proving to be a better option compared to conventional techniques for the fabrication of dental restoratives such as crowns, inlays, onlays, and veneers.

Objective: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical performance, precision, efficiency, and longevity of CAD/CAM restorations and conventional methods.

Methods: The search strategy included a comprehensive search of various databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane, and 55 comparative studies from 2000 to 2025 were included. The results included marginal fit in μm, internal adaptation, fracture resistance, survival, chair time, and patient satisfaction.

Results: CAD/CAM restorations showed significantly better marginal fit, with a mean discrepancy of 62 to 80 μm (95% CI: 55 to 85 μm) compared to 110 to 150 μm (95% CI: 100 to 170 μm) for conventional restorations (p < 0.001), thus minimizing the risk of secondary caries and periodontal disease. Internal adaptation was improved by 40 to 60% in CAD/CAM restorations. Fracture strength was also better in milled ceramics compared to conventionally processed materials. Survival rates were similar or better at 5 years, at 94.5% for CAD/CAM and 91.2% for conventional, HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.03. CAD/CAM technology reduced chairside time by 60 to 75% (1 to 2 hours vs. 2 to 3 weeks) and laboratory remakes by 50%. Patient satisfaction scores were 25 to 35% better because of single-visit procedures and improved esthetics.

Conclusion: CAD/CAM technology has proven to be superior to conventional methods in precision, efficiency, and mechanical properties, thus making it the gold standard in dental restoration.