Abstract
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the time efficiency of digital chairside and labside workflows with a conventional workflow for single-unit restorations. The time efficiency in this specific sense was defined as the time, which has to be spent in a dental office by a dental professional performing the relevant steps. A model with interchangeable teeth on position 36 was created. These teeth were differently prepared, responding to several clinical situations to perform single-unit restorations. Different manufacturing techniques were used: For the digital workflows, CEREC Omnicam (CER) and Trios 3 (TN/TI) were used. The conventional workflow, using a dual-arch tray impression technique, served as the control group. For the labside workflow (_L) and the conventional impression procedure (CO), the time necessary for the impressions and temporary restorations was recorded and served as operating time. The chairside workflow time was divided by the time for the entire workflow (_C) including scan, design, milling and finishing the milled restoration, and in the actual working time (_CW) leaving out the chairside milling of the restoration. Labside workflow time ranged from 9 min 27 s (CER_L) to 12 min 41 s (TI_L). Entire chairside time ranged from 43 min 35 s (CER_C) to 58 min 43 s (TI_C). Pure chairside working time ranged from 15 min 21 s (CER_CW) to 23 min 17 s (TI_CW). Conventional workflow time was 10 min 39 s (CO) on average. The digital labside workflow and the conventional workflow require a similar amount of time. The digital chairside workflow is more time consuming.
Highlights
The use of computer-aided systems in dentistry has increased in the last 10 years and has led to an alternative approach to the conventional workflow with respect to the intraoral impressions [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
The time efficiency in this specific sense was defined as the time, which has to be spent in a dental office by a dental professional performing the relevant steps
The time measured for CO was 10 min 39 s. The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the time efficiency of the labside workflow and chairside workflow compared with a “fast track” conventional workflow for single-unit restorations
Summary
The use of computer-aided systems in dentistry has increased in the last 10 years and has led to an alternative approach to the conventional workflow with respect to the intraoral impressions [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. The dataset containing the information about the digital model is sent to a dental laboratory where the restoration is designed virtually with the aid of CAD software [1,2]. This designed restoration is sent to a milling device that produces the dental restoration (CAM) [1,2,7]. The whole digital workflow takes place in the dental office; the premise is an intraoral scanner with a CAD software and a milling machine on site. Various studies have been done regarding the accuracy of the digital workflow that shows that restorations of equal fit can be produced for a wide range of indications [4,13,14,21,22,23,24]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
