See if it Fits Your Practice Needs, and if so, Purchase as Soon as You Can Afford it
We have been involved with research on this concept for more than 20 years with the successful CEREC and for the last 3 years with the equally acceptable E4D. There is no question that the concept is viable, that both current devices work effectively, that the restorations serve in an equal or better manner than laboratory made ones, and that the overall concept can be cost effective. The question for practitioners is—does this concept fit your specific practice? Most purchasers of these expensive devices (~$130,000) are satisfied with their decision. However, some are not. We suggest that interested practitioners take a course on the concept from unbiased users who have practices similar to their own before making a decision to purchase. If your practice is primarily restorative, your restorations are mainly single units, you are accomplishing at least 15 to 20 indirect restorations per month, you have a competent and computer savvy staff, and you are willing to devote sufficient time to become competent with the concept, do it! If not, laboratory restorations are still the dominant indirect restorations. We predict that some practitioners incorporating this technology will be thrilled with the in-office milling concept, that some will elect to make digital impressions only with the devices and send the computer information to a lab for milling, and that some will have no interest at all.
We know and have proven that the in-office restoration milling concept works well for those who will take the time to properly integrate it into their practices!
.
