Search Dental Tribune

How open architecture CAD/CAM can benefit your practice

With exocad’s ChairsideCAD, clinicians have the freedom to choose the best hardware and software for same-day dentistry regardless of the product or system they prefer. The technology has been selected as a Cellerant Best of Class Technology Award recipient in 2019 and 2020. (Photo: exocad)

Tue. 13 April 2021

save

ChairsideCAD, available from exocad, is the choice of software for leading manufacturers of dental CAD/CAM systems, according to the company, and it has been selected as a Cellerant Best of Class Technology Award recipient in 2019 and 2020.

“We are entering a new era in dentistry — one that will change how we diagnose, treat and manage our patients and practices,” said Dr. Lou Shuman, CEO of Cellerant and founder of the Best of Class Technology Awards. “This was a breakthrough year in product and services technologies. The panel spent hundreds of hours in close discussion reviewing and analyzing the corporate landscape. Pay close attention to our winners as they are truly leading the way to provide you what is best in today’s contemporary practice.”

With exocad’s ChairsideCAD, clinicians have the freedom to choose the best hardware and software for same-day dentistry regardless of the product or system they prefer. This is a groundbreaking evolution, according to the company, since historically the industry has been limited to specific workflows and specific hardware/software working together and adhering to a more closed architecture.

Derived from exocad DentalCAD, a signature software solution within the dental laboratory marketplace for more than a decade, ChairsideCAD includes dentalshare, a powerful collaboration tool for clinicians and labs, according to the company.

“We are honored to receive this prestigious industry award from our clinical audience. With exocad ChairsideCAD, clinicians can access labs, design and production centers with freedom of choice,” said Larry Bodony, president of exocad America. “With this open and flexible workflow, clinicians can maximize their return on investment as well as valuable chair time.”

“Our goal is to help the doctor make the best decisions for their office, which, in the end, benefits the patients that we all serve,” said John Flucke, DDS, Best of Class panel member. “I’m honored to be able to help my peers with the decision-making process and helping them wade through the plethora of high-tech products that can change offices and lives for the better.”

Bodony said, “Having received the Best of Class Award from the Cellerant Company and recognition from their exclusive panel of experts is truly an honor.”

(Source: exocad)

Tags:
To post a reply please login or register

AI-generated versus human-crafted smiles: Aesthetic preferences in digital smile design

A new study has shown that while artificial intelligence has made great strides in smile design, the human touch remains indispensable. (Image: Drobot Dean/Adobe Stock)

Tue. 30 September 2025

save

MANGALORE, India: Digital smile design has begun employing artificial intelligence (AI), raising questions about the quality and acceptability of AI-generated design. A recent study from a team of researchers based in India has compared the aesthetic appeal of AI-generated versus prosthodontist-crafted designs. The findings suggest that, while AI can produce visually acceptable outcomes, human expertise remains crucial for achieving optimal aesthetic results.

The study aimed to assess the aesthetic preferences of traditional digital and AI-generated smile designs among dentists, dental students and laypeople, addressing gaps in previous research on the clinical acceptability of AI in prosthodontic aesthetics.1 Conducted across India, the research involved 320 participants evaluating smile designs created using exocad software.

For four clinical cases, the participants were presented with paired smile designs, one generated by AI and one crafted by a prosthodontist. The designs were evaluated based on factors such as symmetry, tooth proportions and overall aesthetic harmony. Statistical analysis showed that, while AI-generated designs for two of the cases received relatively higher acceptance rates compared with the other two, the prosthodontist-crafted designs were consistently preferred across all participant categories.

These results indicate that AI algorithms can achieve acceptable levels of aesthetic appeal, but still lack the nuanced understanding and emotional context that human clinicians provide. The study concluded that prosthodontist intervention remains critical for achieving truly personalised and aesthetically harmonious outcomes in smile design.

This aligns with findings from a Romanian study published in 2024 which assessed laypeople’s and dental professionals’ perceptions of a digital smile design application.2 The research found that the preferences of both laypeople and dental professionals were shaped by features such as symmetry, tooth shade and gingival balance. Selecting and balancing these elements for an individual patient remains a clinician’s task, highlighting the importance of clinician input in achieving aesthetically pleasing results

A recent review examined the growing use of AI in digital smile design, aiming to assess model performance, points of reference and software accuracy.3 Overall, the review found no significant difference between AI-generated and dentist-created smile designs in terms of aesthetic perception. The authors concluded that further research is needed to establish the role of AI in smile design.

In summary, while AI technologies offer promising tools for enhancing efficiency in digital smile design, they currently cannot replicate the intricate understanding and personalised touch of experienced clinicians. A hybrid approach that combines AI’s efficiency with human expertise may offer the best outcomes in prosthodontic aesthetics.

Editorial note:

References

  1. Kaushik K, Sales A, Rodrigues SJ. Comparative analysis of facial aesthetics in AI generated versus conventionally crafted digital smile designs-a cross-sectional study. BDJ Open. 2025 Sep 15;11(1):79. doi: 10.1038/s41405-025-00367-z.
  2. Buduru S, Cofar F, Mesaroș A, Tăut M, Negucioiu M, Almășan O. Perceptions in digital smile design: assessing laypeople and dental professionals’ preferences using an artificial-intelligence-based application. Dent J (Basel). 2024 Apr 11;12(4):104. doi: 10.3390/dj12040104.
  3. Baaj RE, Alangari TA. Artificial intelligence applications in smile design dentistry: a scoping review. J Prosthodont. 2025 Apr;34(4):341–9. doi: 10.1111/jopr.14000.
Tags:
To post a reply please login or register
advertisement