Most lab prescriptions for lithium disilicate say one word: e.max. But IPS e.max comes in two forms. IPS e.max Press is pressed from an ingot into a mold; IPS e.max CAD is milled from a block and then crystallized. When the Rx does not say which, the lab decides for you.
Usually that is fine. Sometimes it is not: a 0.3 mm veneer, a dark stump that needs an opaque ingot, or a same-day crown. Here is how the two compare, from Ivoclar's current documents and recent studies.
Key Takeaways
- Same material, two routes: Ivoclar rates IPS e.max CAD at 530 MPa and IPS e.max Press at 470 MPa, with nearly the same indications.
- Press goes thinner: veneers of 0.3 mm in Press, 0.4 mm in CAD. Crowns need at least 1.0 mm in either, and adhesive cementation below 1.5 mm.
- For crowns, fit is a draw: a 2024 systematic review of 18 studies found no significant difference in marginal fit (P = 0.49), and a 2026 meta-analysis found no consistent difference in internal fit.
- Ivoclar's compiled average survival is 95.3% for Press and 95.2% for CAD, from different studies, not a head-to-head trial.
- Milling saves technician time: 148 minutes of active work for a pressed crown against 74 to 92 minutes for milled workflows in a randomized clinical study.
Quick Answer
For most single crowns, inlays, onlays and implant crowns on titanium bases, either is a sound choice: current reviews find no consistent difference in fit, and survival data are similar. Prescribe IPS e.max Press when the case needs what only pressing offers: veneers thinner than 0.4 mm, or a high-opacity ingot under a layered crown on a severely discolored tooth. Choose IPS e.max CAD for same-day chairside work. With no preference, say so on the Rx.
How Is Each One Made?
IPS e.max Press: lost-wax pressing
The technician makes a pattern of the restoration, waxed by hand or designed in CAD software and then 3D printed or milled in wax. The pattern is burned out and a heated ingot is pressed into the mold it leaves: the lost-wax technique. Ivoclar calls the digital version Digital Press Design.
IPS e.max CAD: milled blue, then crystallized
CAD blocks are milled in a pre-crystallized, blue intermediate state. A crystallization firing then develops the final strength, shade and translucency. In Ivoclar's Programat CS6 furnace, speed crystallization takes 11:10 minutes, which makes same-day chairside e.max possible. Ivoclar positions CAD for chairside and fast digital workflows, and Press for complex layering or highly individualized restorations.
How Do E.max Press and E.max CAD Compare?
| Feature | IPS e.max Press | IPS e.max CAD |
|---|---|---|
| Starting form | Ingot, pressed into a mold from a wax or printed pattern | Blue block, milled, then crystallized |
| Flexural strength (Ivoclar, biaxial) | 470 MPa | 530 MPa |
| Fracture toughness (as cited by Ivoclar) | 2.5 to 3 MPa·m½ | 2.11 MPa·m½ |
| Thinnest veneer | 0.3 mm | 0.4 mm |
| Crowns | At least 1.0 mm, anterior and posterior | At least 1.0 mm, anterior and posterior |
| Bridges | 3 units, second premolar as the terminal abutment | 3 units, second premolar as the terminal abutment |
| Implant restorations | Single-tooth abutments and abutment crowns | Single-tooth hybrid abutments and hybrid abutment crowns; blocks with a prefabricated interface |
| Translucency and opacity (Ivoclar US range) | HT, MT, LT, MO, HO, plus Multi and Impulse ingots | HT, MT, LT, MO, plus Impulse |
| Finishing options | Staining, cut-back or layering | Polishing, staining and glazing, cut-back or layering |
On paper the indications are nearly identical; the real differences are veneer thickness, the ingot and block range, and the workflow. For both against zirconia, see Zirconia vs. E.max.
Which One Fits Better?
Pressing has a reputation for better margins. Recent reviews are less clear.
- Crowns, marginal fit: a 2024 systematic review of 18 studies, 17 in vitro, found slightly better mean margins with pressing but no statistically significant difference (P = 0.49). Both were clinically acceptable.
- Crowns, internal fit: a 2026 meta-analysis found no significant difference. Only after excluding five heterogeneous studies did pressed crowns come out about 19 µm better, and the authors concluded there is no consistent difference.
- Inlays and onlays: a 2020 meta-analysis found better internal fit with pressing (P = 0.002) and no difference at the margin (P = 0.530).
- Veneers: a 2025 systematic review found better margins for pressed veneers and better internal fit for milled ones, mostly at low or very low certainty. Single studies split: pressed veneers won in one (48 µm cervical gap against 94 µm), milled in another.
The workflow around the restoration matters too: in the 2026 review, the impression method may have influenced internal fit.
How Do Esthetics and Translucency Options Differ?
Both forms are the same glass-ceramic, and both can be stained, cut back or layered with IPS e.max Ceram. What differs is the range to start from:
- IPS e.max Press: HT, MT, LT, MO and HO ingots, plus Multi, a polychromatic ingot with a dentin-to-enamel gradient for monolithic crowns, and Impulse for opalescent veneers. HO masks severely discolored preparations and metal under a fully veneered restoration.
- IPS e.max CAD: HT, MT, LT and MO blocks plus an Impulse version for veneers. Ivoclar notes that the range varies by CAD/CAM system.
Within each form, the translucency level changes both look and strength: one lab study found significant differences in both between translucency levels of Press and of CAD (Wang et al., 2020).
How Thin Can Each One Go?
| Restoration | IPS e.max Press | IPS e.max CAD |
|---|---|---|
| Veneers | At least 0.3 mm | At least 0.4 mm |
| Thin veneer, Ivoclar diagram | 0.4 mm cervical, 0.5 mm facial and incisal (standard veneer: 0.6 mm cervical and facial, 0.7 mm incisal) | |
| Inlays, onlays and occlusal veneers | At least 1.0 mm | |
| Monolithic crowns | At least 1.0 mm; adhesive cementation mandatory below 1.5 mm | |
| Cut-back crowns | 1.5 mm incisal or occlusal; 1.2 mm circular anterior, 1.5 mm circular posterior | |
| Extra rule | None listed | Preparation edge at least 1.0 mm, especially anterior, for milling |
In fatigue testing, thickness mattered more than the route: occlusal veneers in Press and CAD performed alike at 0.5 mm and at 0.8 mm, while 0.8 mm veneers survived significantly better than 0.5 mm ones (Charoenporn et al., 2024). For margin design and reduction, see our crown prep guide.
Do Pressed and Milled E.max Last Differently?
Ivoclar's average survival for both forms across six clinical studies each: 95.3% for IPS e.max Press (7 to 16.9 years) and 95.2% for IPS e.max CAD (3 to 15 years). Manufacturer figures from different studies, not a direct comparison.
Head-to-head clinical comparisons of pressed and milled e.max crowns are hard to find. A 2025 overview of 28 systematic reviews found 95 to 100% short- and medium-term survival for lithium disilicate crowns, but warned that reviews often pool materials without subgroup analyses and that data beyond five years are limited.
Single-route studies exist for both. Pressed posterior e.max showed 96.49% estimated survival at 16.9 years across 2,392 restorations (Malament et al., 2021). Chairside CAD crowns showed 83.5% at 10 years in a small study (41 crowns in 34 patients), but only one of five failures was a crown fracture; the rest involved the tooth (Rauch et al., 2018). Different patients and definitions make the two numbers incomparable.
For veneers, a 2025 systematic review found higher long-term survival for pressed veneers, at low or very low certainty; a clinical study with a mean 35-month follow-up found 95% survival for pressed and 100% for milled, with no significant difference.
What About Cost and Turnaround?
Pressing has more hands-on steps: pattern, burnout, pressing and finishing. In a randomized within-patient clinical study, the conventional pressed workflow took 148 minutes of active technician time per crown, against 74 to 92 minutes for four digital workflows milling IPS e.max CAD. For ultra-thin occlusal veneers, a 2024 lab study measured 67.2 minutes to mill and 200.8 to 289.2 minutes to press.
Pressing batches well: Ivoclar says one press cycle can make 6 to 12 restorations, depending on type. Because technician time and materials differ, some labs price or schedule the two routes differently. If the route matters to you, ask whether it changes the fee or the turnaround.
What About Implant Crowns on Titanium Bases?
Both are used for single-tooth implant restorations bonded to a titanium base. IPS e.max CAD offers LT and MO blocks with a prefabricated interface for hybrid abutments and screw-retained hybrid abutment crowns; for Press abutment crowns, Ivoclar suggests Multi, MT and LT ingots. In a lab study of monolithic molar crowns on titanium bases, pressed and milled crowns showed no difference in strength, before or after simulated five-year aging (Spitznagel et al., 2022). For the abutment itself, see Implant Abutments Explained.
Which Should You Prescribe? A Case-by-Case Guide
| Case | Which to choose | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Veneers thinner than 0.4 mm | Press | Only Press is indicated below 0.4 mm (minimum 0.3 mm) |
| Veneers of 0.4 mm or more | Either | Both indicated; a 2025 review favors pressing for margins, at low certainty |
| Anterior crowns, high esthetic demand | Either; Press for complex layering | Both can be cut back or layered; Ivoclar prefers Press for highly individualized work |
| Severely discolored stump or metal core, layered crown | Press (HO) | Ivoclar lists HO only for Press; MO exists in both |
| Posterior single crown, monolithic | Either | No consistent fit or survival difference |
| Inlays, onlays, occlusal veneers | Either | Pressed inlays and onlays fit better internally in one meta-analysis; fatigue alike |
| Implant crown on a titanium base | Either | No strength difference in lab testing |
| Three-unit bridge to the second premolar | Either | Same limit for both; longer spans need another material |
| Same-day crown | CAD | Only CAD can be milled and crystallized chairside |
What Should You Write on the Rx?
- The form, if it matters: "IPS e.max Press" or "IPS e.max CAD". If not, "lithium disilicate, pressed or milled".
- Translucency and shade: for example MT A2, or MO or HO for a dark stump, plus the stump shade.
- Technique: monolithic stained, cut-back or layered.
- Thickness and cement: the reduction you made, and adhesive, self-adhesive or conventional cementation.
- For implants: implant system, platform and the titanium base you want.
IPS E.max at Elegant Dental Laboratory
- IPS e.max: full-contour crowns, veneers, layered crowns, and inlays and onlays. See our e.max options.
- Every case is made in house at our 7,000 sq. ft. facility at 2308 McDonald Ave, Brooklyn, NY, and digital scans are reviewed before production.
- 5 business day standard turnaround on most restorative cases, rush options available, and up to a 7-year warranty on final restorations. Submit a digital case or call 877-335-5221.
Related Guides
- Shade Matching for the Lab: How to Take Shade Photos and Send a Stump Shade
- Types of Zirconia Explained: 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, Multilayer, Monolithic and Layered
- PFM vs. Zirconia Crowns in 2026: When Metal-Ceramic Still Makes Sense
FAQ
Is e.max Press stronger than e.max CAD?
Ivoclar rates CAD higher, at 530 MPa against 470 MPa. Some independent lab studies found pressed lithium disilicate stronger or tougher. Clinically, neither shows a clear survival advantage.
Does pressed e.max fit better than milled?
Not consistently. For crowns, recent meta-analyses found no significant difference in marginal or internal fit. Pressing did better for inlay and onlay internal fit, and for veneer margins in one review.
What is the thinnest e.max veneer?
0.3 mm with IPS e.max Press and 0.4 mm with IPS e.max CAD, per Ivoclar. Veneers are bonded adhesively.
Can I cement e.max with a self-adhesive or conventional cement?
For crowns and three-unit bridges with at least 1.5 mm of ceramic, yes, per Ivoclar. Veneers, inlays, onlays, partial crowns and thinner crowns need adhesive cementation.
Which lasts longer, pressed or milled e.max?
No trial answers that directly. Ivoclar's averages are 95.3% for Press and 95.2% for CAD, from different studies with different follow-up.
Sources (20)
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max CAD product page (strength, blue state, indications, blocks, crystallization, processing options). ivoclar.com
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max Press product page (indications, ingots, Digital Press Design, implant restorations). ivoclar.com
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max Press & CAD, Instructions for dentists. Date information prepared: 2024-06, Rev. 0. PDF
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max Scientific Report Vol. 04/2025. PDF
- Pachiou A, et al. Evaluation of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate single crowns fabricated with the conventional (IPS e.max Press) and CAD/CAM (IPS e.max CAD) methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Comput Dent. 2024;27(4):365-377. doi:10.3290/j.ijcd.b4224643
- Pachiou A, et al. Internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing heat-pressed and CAD-CAM-milled fabrication methods. J Prosthodont Res. 2026 (online ahead of print). doi:10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_25_00115
- Bastos NA, et al. Marginal and internal adaptation of lithium disilicate partial restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20(4):338-344. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_112_20
- Sudharson NA, et al. Clinical Performance and Survival Outcomes of Milled Versus Pressed Lithium Disilicate Veneers: A Systematic Review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025;37(12):2590-2600. doi:10.1111/jerd.70038
- Bandela V, et al. Marginal Fit of Three Commonly Used Veneers for Smile Enhancement: An In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2026;20(2):533-540. doi:10.1055/s-0045-1810443
- Anh NV, et al. Comparison of the Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Laminate Veneers Fabricated with Four Different CAM Techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2025;38(3):324-330. doi:10.11607/ijp.8920
- Wang F, Yu T, Chen J. Biaxial flexural strength and translucent characteristics of dental lithium disilicate glass ceramics with different translucencies. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(1):71-77. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.007
- Alkadi L, Ruse ND. Fracture toughness of two lithium disilicate dental glass ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):591-596. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.009
- Charoenporn W, et al. Evaluating fatigue resistance in occlusal veneers: a comparative study of processing techniques and material thickness of lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press vs. IPS e.max CAD). BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1542. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05347-7
- Laumbacher H, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications of tooth- and implant-supported lithium (di)silicate based single crowns: an overview of systematic reviews. J Dent. 2025;162:106004. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106004
- Malament KA, et al. Comparison of 16.9-year survival of pressed acid etched e.max lithium disilicate glass-ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(4):533-545. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.013
- Rauch A, et al. Clinical survival of chair-side generated monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: 10-year results. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(4):1763-1769. doi:10.1007/s00784-017-2271-3
- Yu F, et al. Clinical outcomes of self-glazed zirconia veneers produced by 3D gel deposition: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):457. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04253-2
- Sailer I, et al. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):43-48. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.031
- Paqué PN, et al. Load-bearing capacity, internal accuracy and time-efficiency of heat-pressed, milled and 3D-printed lithium disilicate ultra-thin occlusal veneers. Dent Mater. 2024;40(10):1602-1610. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.017
- Spitznagel FA, et al. Failure Load of Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant-Supported Single Crowns Bonded to Ti-base Abutments versus to Customized Ceramic Abutments after Fatigue. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(2):136-146. doi:10.1111/jopr.13369
Reviewed by Gary Fingerman, founder and CEO of Elegant Dental Laboratory, Brooklyn, New York (founded 2007). Last reviewed: September 28, 2026. Material values are manufacturer data or published studies; always follow the current instructions for use of the material you choose.
