New Lithium Disilicate Materials in CEREC 2026: IPS e.max vs. Celtra Press vs. Suprinity PC

The lithium disilicate landscape for CEREC continues evolving, and 2026 brings some interesting developments in our material options. While IPS e.max CAD remains the gold standard many of us have relied on for years, Celtra Press and Suprinity PC are making compelling cases for chairside use. Let me break down what I've learned using these materials in practice and how they stack up for different clinical situations.

Understanding the Material Fundamentals

Before diving into specifics, it's worth reviewing what makes these lithium disilicate materials tick. All three offer that sweet spot of strength (300-400 MPa flexural strength) and aesthetics that made lithium disilicate our go-to for anterior crowns and posterior premolars. The key differences lie in their crystalline structure, processing requirements, and how they respond to our CEREC milling and firing protocols.

IPS e.max CAD remains the most predictable option. Its blue block pre-crystallized state mills beautifully, and the crystallization firing process is well-established. Most of us could set those firing parameters in our sleep at this point.

Celtra Press brings zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate to the table, which sounds fancy but translates to slightly higher strength with comparable aesthetics. The milling characteristics are noticeably different – it's a bit more forgiving with thin margins.

Suprinity PC (the pre-crystallized version) offers enhanced translucency compared to its original formulation. Vita has refined the crystalline structure to improve both strength and optical properties, though it requires specific attention to firing schedules.

Clinical Performance: What Actually Matters Chairside

Strength and Durability

In my experience, all three materials perform well for their intended applications. IPS e.max CAD consistently delivers 360-400 MPa flexural strength after proper crystallization. I've had excellent long-term success with posterior premolar crowns, though I still avoid using it on molars in heavy bruxers.

Celtra Press edges out slightly higher at 370-420 MPa, and that zirconia reinforcement seems to make a difference in challenging cases. I've noticed fewer chipping incidents on thin incisal edges compared to traditional e.max, though the sample size is still relatively small.

Suprinity PC falls in the middle range but compensates with excellent fatigue resistance. The refined crystal structure appears more resilient to cyclic loading, which matters more than peak strength numbers for long-term clinical success.

Aesthetic Properties

This is where personal preference and case requirements really drive material selection. IPS e.max CAD's aesthetic properties are well-documented and predictable. The shade matching is consistent, and we all know how it responds to staining and glazing.

Celtra Press offers similar translucency to e.max but with slightly different light transmission characteristics. The zirconia content creates a more uniform opacity that can actually be advantageous when masking darker preparations. I've found it particularly useful for tetracycline-stained teeth where you need good masking without sacrificing aesthetics.

Suprinity PC's enhanced translucency is noticeable, especially in the incisal third. The improved optical properties make it excellent for anterior restorations where you need that natural depth. However, this increased translucency means you need to be more careful with preparation shade and cement selection.

CEREC Milling Considerations

Milling Parameters and Tool Selection

Each material has its preferences when it comes to milling. IPS e.max CAD is straightforward – standard lithium disilicate settings work consistently. I typically use the 12S bur for roughing and 12S or 10S for finishing, depending on the restoration complexity.

Celtra Press requires slightly modified parameters. The zirconia reinforcement makes it a bit harder, so I've found better results using the 12S bur throughout and reducing feed rates by about 15%. The material also seems to hold detail better during milling, which is helpful for complex anatomical features.

Suprinity PC mills similarly to e.max CAD but benefits from fresh burs. The enhanced crystalline structure seems more sensitive to tool wear, and I've noticed better margin quality when using newer burs. It's worth tracking your bur usage more carefully with this material.

Edge Quality and Finishing

All three materials mill to acceptable edge quality, but there are differences. IPS e.max CAD occasionally shows minor chipping on thin margins, especially when burs are getting worn. Standard polishing protocols work well.

Celtra Press consistently produces cleaner edges, even with moderately worn burs. The zirconia reinforcement seems to support the lithium silicate matrix during cutting. Post-milling finishing is straightforward with standard diamond polishers.

Suprinity PC requires more attention to milling speed and cooling. When parameters are optimized, edge quality is excellent. However, it's less forgiving than the other materials if your milling setup isn't dialed in properly.

Firing Protocols and Crystallization

Furnace Programming

This is where things get interesting and where attention to detail really matters. IPS e.max CAD's firing schedule is well-established: 820°C hold temperature for about 7 minutes, with specific ramp rates. Most furnaces have this programmed as a standard cycle.

Celtra Press uses a different firing profile – 820°C for 8 minutes with a slower cooling rate. The zirconia component requires this extended firing time for optimal crystallization. I've found that rushing the cooling phase can affect the final strength properties.

Suprinity PC needs careful attention to its firing schedule. The enhanced formulation requires 840°C for 8 minutes, which is higher than traditional lithium disilicate. The temperature control needs to be precise – even 10-15°C variation can affect the final optical properties.

Glazing and Staining

All three materials accept stains and glazes well, but with some nuances. IPS e.max CAD is predictable with Ivoclar stains and glazes, and most of us have developed consistent techniques over the years.

Celtra Press works well with both Dentsply and Ivoclar staining systems. The zirconia content doesn't seem to affect stain uptake significantly. Glazing requires standard protocols, though I've noticed the final surface seems slightly more durable than traditional e.max.

Suprinity PC's enhanced translucency means stains appear more vibrant, which can be both an advantage and a challenge. Light staining gives excellent results, but it's easy to overdo it. The material also seems more sensitive to glaze thickness – thin, even applications work best.

Clinical Applications and Case Selection

Anterior Restorations

For anterior crowns and veneers, material selection often comes down to the specific aesthetic requirements and preparation conditions. IPS e.max CAD remains my default choice for most anterior cases – it's predictable, and I know exactly how it will behave.

Suprinity PC has become my preferred option when superior translucency is needed, particularly for younger patients with highly translucent natural teeth. The enhanced optical properties make blending easier, but you need excellent preparation design and careful cement selection.

Celtra Press works well when you need good masking properties without sacrificing aesthetics. It's become my go-to for cases with challenging preparation shades or when the patient has a history of chipping restorations.

Posterior Applications

For premolar crowns, all three materials work well within their strength limitations. IPS e.max CAD continues to be reliable for most cases. The long track record and predictable behavior make it hard to argue against.

Celtra Press offers that slight strength advantage that can matter in borderline cases. I've been using it more frequently for premolars in patients with moderate bruxism, though I still wouldn't push it to molars in heavy grinders.

Suprinity PC works well for premolars but doesn't offer significant advantages over the other options in posterior applications. The enhanced aesthetics matter less in posterior regions, so the additional complexity of the firing protocol isn't usually justified.

Cost and Practice Integration

Material Costs

IPS e.max CAD blocks remain competitively priced, and the predictable processing means fewer remakes and adjustments. The cost per successful restoration is well-established in most practices.

Celtra Press blocks are priced similarly to e.max CAD, making the switch economically neutral. The potentially lower remake rate due to better chipping resistance could actually improve the economics.

Suprinity PC blocks carry a slight premium, but not dramatically so. The enhanced aesthetics can justify the additional cost for appropriate cases, though it's not necessary for every restoration.

Learning Curve and Staff Training

IPS e.max CAD requires no additional training – your team already knows the protocols. This consistency has value, especially in busy practices.

Celtra Press requires minor protocol adjustments for milling and firing. The learning curve is minimal, and most teams adapt quickly. The main consideration is ensuring everyone understands the modified firing schedule.

Suprinity PC demands more attention to detail, particularly with firing protocols and staining techniques. Plan for additional training time and expect some initial variability in results while the team develops consistency.

Practical Recommendations

Based on my clinical experience, here's how I approach material selection:

Stick with IPS e.max CAD for routine cases where you need predictable results. It's still an excellent material, and the familiarity factor has real value in maintaining consistent quality and efficiency.

Consider Celtra Press when you need that extra margin of safety – challenging preparations, patients with parafunctional habits, or cases where you've had chipping issues with traditional lithium disilicate.

Choose Suprinity PC when aesthetics are paramount and you're willing to invest in the more demanding processing requirements. It's particularly valuable for anterior cases in younger patients or when matching highly translucent natural teeth.

The key is having clear criteria for material selection rather than trying to use one material for everything. Each has its sweet spot, and knowing when to use which material will improve your clinical outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use the same CEREC milling settings for all three materials?

While the settings are similar, each material performs best with slightly different parameters. IPS e.max CAD uses standard lithium disilicate settings, Celtra Press benefits from reduced feed rates due to its zirconia reinforcement, and Suprinity PC requires fresh burs and precise cooling for optimal results. I recommend establishing specific protocols for each material rather than using universal settings.

How do the firing schedules differ, and can I use my existing furnace programs?

The firing schedules vary significantly. IPS e.max CAD uses 820°C for 7 minutes, Celtra Press requires 820°C for 8 minutes with slower cooling, and Suprinity PC needs 840°C for 8 minutes. You'll need separate furnace programs for each material, and temperature precision is critical, especially for Suprinity PC where even small variations affect optical properties.

Which material offers the best strength for posterior applications?

Celtra Press typically provides the highest flexural strength (370-420 MPa) due to its zirconia reinforcement, followed closely by IPS e.max CAD (360-400 MPa). However, all three materials are limited to premolars in most clinical situations. The strength differences are less important than proper case selection and avoiding these materials in heavy bruxers or molar applications.

Are there significant differences in how these materials accept stains and glazes?

All three materials accept stains and glazes well, but with nuances. IPS e.max CAD is predictable with established staining systems. Celtra Press behaves similarly but may show slightly more durable glaze surfaces. Suprinity PC's enhanced translucency makes stains appear more vibrant, requiring lighter application techniques and careful attention to glaze thickness for optimal results.

Should I stock multiple lithium disilicate materials or focus on one?

For most practices, starting with IPS e.max CAD as your primary material and adding one other option based on your specific needs makes sense. If you frequently encounter challenging aesthetic cases, add Suprinity PC. If you see more patients with parafunctional habits or have had chipping issues, consider Celtra Press. Having clear criteria for when to use each material is more important than stocking every available option.

---