TABLE 3.

Advantages and limitations of CAD‐CAM machinable CRC versus 3D‐printed CRC for definitive restorations.

	Machinable CRC	3D‐printed CRC
Fabrication precision	High precision due to controlled industrial milling processes.	Precision can vary depending on the 3D printer type, quality, calibration, ethanol rinse procedures, curing device, and settings.
Material homogeneity	Generally uniform, with fewer defects due to pre‐fabrication under controlled conditions.	Potential for inhomogeneities, such as voids or inconsistent layers, depending on printing quality.
Mechanical properties	Higher mechanical properties compared to 3‐printed CRC, but lower than ceramics.	Generally lower mechanical strength and wear resistance compared to CAD‐CAM CRC, and significant inferior to ceramics.
Optical properties	Monochromatic but minor changes in translucency over time.	Monochromatic, but susceptible to discoloration in a short period of time.
Surface	Maintains smoother surface short‐term with less roughness progression compared to 3D‐printed CRC Requires higher maintenance with constant finishing and polishing steps than ceramic.	Increased susceptibility to surface roughness progression, especially after aging, leading to higher wear rates. Requires higher maintenance with constant finishing and polishing steps than machinable CRC.
Steps	Scan, design, mill, finish, and polish.	Scan, design, print, wash, dry, polymerize, finish, and polish.
Time efficiency	Faster turnaround for single units once blocks are milled. Must consider finishing and polishing steps.	Must consider printing and post‐processing times, finishing and polishing steps. Can be faster for complex or multiple units.
Cost	Higher investment due to the cost of CAD‐CAM software, milling software, milling machine, burs, and blocks.	Lower material costs but requires investment in 3D printing technology (3D printer, wash and dry machine, and curing device). Does requires constant calibration of the printer.
Material waste	Generates more waste due to milling from a solid block.	20% less waste than machinable CRC as material is added layer by layer.
Bonding	Established protocols with predictable outcomes.	Bonding protocols are still evolving, with potential variability in outcomes.
Clinical longevity	Moderate clinical longevity in low‐stress applications; not ideal for high‐stress or full‐coverage restorations.	No long‐term data available; long‐term independent clinical trials are necessary. Could be better suited for provisional applications.