A recent Wall Street Journal article, “Are One-Day Crowns Worth the No Wait?”, raised questions about the quality of chairside CAD/CAM restorations made using systems like CEREC or E4D. While it’s great to see dentistry featured in mainstream media, the piece unfortunately perpetuates several misconceptions. Below, I address some of the article’s most misleading claims.

Claim 1: “There are aesthetic limitations to the one-day crown.”

The article suggests that crowns created chairside lack the aesthetic appeal of those made in a lab. This is simply not true. Regardless of whether a crown is fabricated in-office or by a lab, achieving a lifelike appearance depends on selecting the correct shade, translucency, and overall design.

One of the most challenging restorations to match is a single anterior crown. However, chairside systems provide dentists with a unique advantage: the natural teeth are right there for comparison. This allows us to fine-tune the color, shade, and translucency in real time, ensuring a perfect match before bonding the crown.

With CAD/CAM technology, I have complete control over the esthetics, and there’s no need to rely on written instructions or guesswork by a lab technician. When done properly, chairside crowns can be just as beautiful—and often more precise—than lab-made restorations.

Claim 2: “More research is needed, particularly comparing lab-made crowns to those made in dentists' offices, scientists say.”

The assertion that more research is needed comes across as ill-informed. First, many labs use the same materials and processes as chairside systems. In both cases, the quality of the crown ultimately depends on the materials and the clinician’s expertise.

Second, there’s already a wealth of research comparing different types of crowns, including lab-made porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns and chairside all-ceramic crowns. Numerous studies have demonstrated the durability, esthetics, and clinical success of CAD/CAM restorations. For example, long-term studies have shown that all-ceramic crowns—whether fabricated chairside or in a lab—can perform exceptionally well in terms of strength and longevity.

To claim that there’s insufficient research is misleading and undermines the significant body of evidence supporting chairside CAD/CAM restorations.

The Bigger Picture

Chairside CAD/CAM technology isn’t just a tool—it’s a transformative way of delivering high-quality dental care efficiently. The article failed to recognize that these systems allow dentists to provide patients with crowns that restore both the form and function of natural teeth in a single visit, without sacrificing quality or esthetics.

The artistry of creating a crown lies in the dentist’s hands, not the method of fabrication. With proper training and attention to detail, dentists can produce chairside crowns that rival or surpass lab-made alternatives.

Final Thoughts

While it’s encouraging to see dental topics gaining attention in major publications, accuracy is crucial. Misinformation, like that found in the Wall Street Journal article, can create unnecessary skepticism about advancements in dental care.

Chairside CAD/CAM technology offers a reliable and esthetic solution for patients, and it’s important to focus on the skill of the practitioner rather than perpetuate unfounded doubts about the technology itself. When used appropriately, these systems are a win-win for both dentists and patients, combining convenience, efficiency, and exceptional results.

This article is sourced from: https://www.dentalcompare.com/Blog/144680-Wall-Street-Journal-Dental-CAD-CAM-Article-Gets-it-Wrong/