Case Study

3D printed inlays vs. milled hybrid ceramic restorations

An advanced solution for diastema and interproximal spaces

3D printed inlays vs. milled hybrid ceramic restorations

Before

3d inlays and hybrid restorations

After

3d inlays and hybrid restorations

We have been leaning heavily into 3D printed inlays lately, largely due to a plentiful TGA Class II materials. The fit is incredibly precise, allowing us to be more forgiving with tooth preparation compared to chairside milling. We’re also quite impressed with the bond strength. The fresh print provides active free radicals, which we believe leads to a superior bond compared to the inert surface of milled restorations. In terms of physical properties, we’re confident that printed inlays outperform any milled hybrid ceramic available in Australia.

While the aesthetics are acceptable in the posterior, we understand that it is not ideal for a perfectly natural look in the more visually prominent teeth. However, given the location of the restorations, it’s not a major concern.

The process itself is not significantly faster than milling. It takes about 2 minutes to scan, 5 minutes to design, 10 minutes to print, 2 minutes to characterise and 5 minutes to cure. While using a Sprintray system, we have not found a substantial time advantage over milling. To maximise efficiency, it would be beneficial to involve the team in the process.

decayed teeth
3d inlays and hybrid restorations
radiopaque restoration

Radiographic assessment

The OPG image demonstrates a well-defined, radiopaque restoration with a homogeneous density resembling that of Emax. Its margins appear to be well-adapted to the surrounding tooth structure. The 3D printed inlays exhibit a consistent opacity throughout, indicative of a solid and intact material.