Milled vs 3D printed temporaries for crown and bridge cases

<p>The decision is about wear window and load, not which technology is newer. Most chairside complaints about 3D printed provisionals trace back to cases where the printed temp was asked to do a milled temp's job. The reverse is true for milled provisionals on a quick mockup, where the patient is paying for puck time they did not need.</p><p>Pick milled PMMA when the provisional needs to wear longer than 30 days, when the case is a long-span bridge of four or more units, or when it is a full-arch implant-supported provisional carrying occlusal load. Choose 3D printed resin when the case is a single-unit or three-unit temporary with a two-week wear window, when the patient needs same-day delivery, or when the provisional is a diagnostic mockup or shade try-in that will be replaced inside 30 days.</p><p>Opt for milled PMMA on anterior cases where shade stability matters past the second month, and select 3D printed when budget pressure is real and the wear window is short. If you are not sure where the case falls, send the scan and the wear window, and the lab will recommend the material on the case slip.</p>

<p>Dani Dental runs both workflows in-house on the same digital pipeline, so the material decision is made on case merit, not on which machine is available that day. For single-unit and short-span provisionals under a 30-day wear window, our 3D printed temporaries ship same-day or next-day at a lower per-unit cost. For long-span bridges, full-arch implant provisionals, and any case wearing past 30 days, we mill PMMA on the same scan file with a 24-48 hour turnaround.</p><p>Honest read: if your practice is doing high volumes of single-unit mockups and your cost-per-temp matters more than the wear window, a chairside printer in your operatory will beat any lab on price per unit. We are the better fit when the case mix includes long-span work, implant provisionals, or anterior cases where shade stability past 60 days is non-negotiable.</p>