Digital dentistry makes crowns two main ways: milling (carving the restoration out of a solid block) and 3D printing (building it up layer by layer). Both can produce a crown in a single day. But which makes the better crown?
A 2025 scoping review in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, led by Dr. Catalina Cioloca Holban, compared the two technologies across 28 studies — and found the honest answer is “it depends on the job.”
What the review looked at
The researchers searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for studies from 2015 to 2025 comparing 3D printing with CAD/CAM milling in prosthodontics. They included 28 studies and compared accuracy, efficiency, materials, and outcomes — including marginal fit (how tightly a crown’s edge seals against the tooth), strength, color stability, production time, and material waste.
Milling still wins for precision fixed work
For crowns and fixed bridges, milling demonstrated superior accuracy. Milled zirconia crowns showed marginal gaps averaging about 124 micrometers — right at the accepted clinical threshold. Optimized 3D-printed interim (temporary) crowns achieved nearly identical numbers, but the review’s overall conclusion was that milling remains preferred for high-precision final restorations.
Milled materials also held their color better than printed resins, which matters for front teeth. One surprise: for certain metal frameworks, 3D printing won decisively — printed cobalt-chromium frameworks achieved fits around 8 micrometers versus roughly 130 micrometers from milling. Different materials, different strengths.
3D printing wins on efficiency and complex shapes
Printing wastes less than 5% of material, while milling throws away 30–40% — the crown is carved from a block and the rest becomes dust. For complex geometries like hollow-pontic bridges, printing reduced fit errors by a third. Digital workflows overall cut chairside time by about 29% (roughly 154 versus 218 minutes for conventional approaches).
Critically, all methods met the clinical threshold of under 120 micrometers for marginal gaps. Both technologies make crowns that fit well enough for real mouths — the differences are about which is best for which application, not about one being unsafe.
What patients should actually take from this
The technology debate is interesting, but here is what matters in the chair:
- The scan and design matter most. A perfectly milled crown from a sloppy scan still fits poorly. Scan quality and design decisions are the real foundation.
- “Same-day crown” is about the workflow. Whether milled or printed in the office, the benefit is the same: no temporary crown, no second appointment, no goopy impression material.
- Temporary and final crowns differ. The review’s strong printed-crown results were largely for interim restorations. For a final crown that must last a decade or more, milled ceramics and zirconia remain the proven choice.
- Material choice is clinical. Zirconia, lithium disilicate, and other ceramics each suit different teeth and forces. A prosthodontist selects the material for your specific tooth.
The prosthodontist’s role in digital restorations
This is where specialty training matters. A prosthodontist spends years beyond dental school learning these decisions: which material for which tooth, how to shape a crown for your bite, and how one crown affects the teeth around it.
Dr. Leila Nikpour at Expert Dental Group in Roseville plans restorations digitally from an in-house 3D CBCT scan, with more than 15 years of dentistry experience behind every design decision. Whether you need a single crown, a bridge, veneers, or full-mouth rehabilitation, the technology serves the plan — and the plan comes from a specialist in rebuilding smiles. Wondering about cost? It depends on the material, the tooth, and your bite — the practice offers a consultation where your case is evaluated and explained, no surprises.
The bottom line
The 2025 Holban review confirms both 3D printing and CAD/CAM milling make clinically acceptable restorations. Milling leads for final crowns and fixed work; printing leads for efficiency, complex shapes, and certain frameworks. For patients, the takeaway is simpler: digital dentistry works — and the dentist designing your restoration matters more than the machine making it.
References
- Cioloca Holban C, Tatarciuc M, Vitalariu AM, Vasluianu RI, Antohe M, Diaconu DA, Stamatin O, Dima AM. Three-dimensional printing and CAD/CAM milling in prosthodontics: a scoping review of key metrics towards future perspectives. J Clin Med. 2025;14(14):4837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14144837. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40725530/
Frequently Asked Questions
Are 3D-printed crowns as good as milled crowns?
For final crowns, milling still has the edge in accuracy and color stability, per a 2025 review of 28 studies. Printing excels for temporary crowns, complex shapes, and efficiency. Both meet clinical fit standards.
What is a same-day crown?
A crown designed from a digital scan and made in the office — milled or printed — so you get the restoration in one visit, with no temporary crown and no return appointment.
How long do digitally made crowns last?
Longevity depends on the material and your bite, not just the manufacturing method. Milled zirconia and lithium disilicate are proven long-term materials.
Does 3D printing waste less material than milling?
Yes — dramatically. Printing wastes under 5% versus 30–40% for milling. An efficiency advantage, though it doesn’t change how the crown feels in your mouth.
Why does the crown material matter?
Different teeth take different forces. A molar needs strength; a front tooth needs lifelike translucency. A prosthodontist matches the material to the tooth’s location and your bite.
Need a crown or considering same-day dentistry? Call Dr. Leila Nikpour at Expert Dental Group, (916) 888-1646 — 5070 Foothills Blvd, Suite 2, Roseville, CA 95747. Open Mon–Fri 9–6, Sat 9–1.