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

The lithium disilicate landscape has evolved significantly in 2026, and if you're like me, you're probably wondering which material deserves shelf space in your CEREC setup. After milling with all three major players—IPS e.max, Celtra Press, and Suprinity—for the past year, I've got some honest insights to share about their real-world performance.

Let's cut through the marketing hype and talk about what actually matters when you're trying to deliver predictable, beautiful restorations for your patients.

The Current State of Lithium Disilicate for CEREC

First, let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: lithium disilicate isn't the newest kid on the block anymore. We've got zirconia variants that are getting stronger and more translucent, and hybrid ceramics that are easier to mill. But lithium disilicate still hits that sweet spot of strength (360-400 MPa) and esthetics that makes it my go-to for single-unit anterior and posterior restorations.

What's changed in 2026 is the refinement of these materials. The manufacturers have listened to our complaints about chipping, difficult milling characteristics, and inconsistent crystallization results. Each of these three materials has addressed these issues differently.

IPS e.max: The Established Workhorse

IPS e.max CAD remains the gold standard that everything else gets compared to, and for good reason. Ivoclar has refined the material composition in their 2026 release, particularly improving the pre-crystallized state for more predictable milling.

Milling Characteristics

The updated e.max mills cleaner than previous versions. I'm running it at 1.2mm bur diameter with feed rates around 0.8mm/min for detailed areas and 2.0mm/min for bulk reduction. The key change I've noticed is less microchipping at margin areas when using sharp burs.

Here's my current protocol:

• Step bur diameter: 1.2mm for finishing, 2.5mm for roughing
• Spindle speed: 25,000 RPM for finishing passes
• Water cooling: Continuous, but watch for pooling in deep preparations
• Tool path: I prefer the “Fine” setting in CEREC SW 5.2 for margins under 0.5mm thickness

Crystallization Protocol

The firing cycle hasn't changed dramatically, but the newer blocks seem more forgiving of slight temperature variations. I'm still using the standard 840°C hold for 7 minutes, but I've found the newer material tolerates a 10-degree variance without significant strength loss.

One practical tip: if you're doing multiple units, stagger your firing schedule. The newer e.max seems to benefit from a slower heat-up rate when the furnace is already warm from previous firings.

Clinical Performance

Strength-wise, e.max continues to deliver. I'm seeing consistent 380+ MPa flexural strength in my lab testing, and clinically, the five-year data on the updated formulation looks solid. The translucency options have expanded—the new HT+ blocks are noticeably more lifelike in the anterior region.

Celtra Press: The Challenger with Potential

Dentsply's Celtra Press has made significant strides in 2026. What initially felt like a “me-too” product has developed its own identity, particularly in terms of milling efficiency and color stability.

Milling Advantages

Where Celtra Press really shines is in milling time and bur life. I'm getting roughly 30% longer bur life compared to e.max, which adds up when you're doing volume. The material machines more like a hybrid ceramic—less brittle, more predictable chip formation.

My Celtra Press settings:

• Slightly more aggressive feed rates: 1.0mm/min for detail work
• Less conservative tool paths—the material handles it well
• 22,000 RPM spindle speed (lower than e.max due to better heat dissipation)
• Standard bur progression works fine, but I can push the 1.0mm bur further into detail work

Firing Considerations

Celtra Press fires at a slightly lower temperature—820°C for 8 minutes. The longer hold time initially concerned me, but the results are worth it. The material seems less sensitive to cooling rate, which is helpful if your furnace doesn't have the most precise programming.

One quirk I've noticed: Celtra Press shows better color stability post-firing when you use a slower heat-up rate (50°C/min vs. the standard 60°C/min). It adds two minutes to your firing cycle but eliminates some of the color shift I was seeing with A2 and A3 shades.

Clinical Observations

The strength numbers are comparable to e.max (370-390 MPa), but the real-world performance feels different. I've had fewer instances of marginal chipping during try-in, and the material seems more forgiving of aggressive margin design. The translucency is good but not quite at e.max HT levels.

Suprinity: The Technical Innovator

Vita's Suprinity takes a different approach with its zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate chemistry. In 2026, they've refined the material to address some of the early concerns about brittleness and color matching.

Milling Complexity

Suprinity is the most technically demanding of the three to mill well. The zirconia reinforcement makes it harder, which means longer milling times but also better edge integrity once you dial in your parameters.

My Suprinity protocol:

• Conservative feed rates: 0.6mm/min for finishing work
• Higher spindle speeds: 28,000 RPM to maintain cutting efficiency
• Frequent bur changes—I replace finishing burs after 8-10 units vs. 12-15 with other materials
• Enhanced cooling—I run slightly higher water flow to manage heat buildup

Firing and Finishing

Suprinity's firing cycle is more complex—840°C for 8 minutes, but with a specific cooling protocol that matters more than with the other materials. I've learned to let it cool naturally to 600°C before opening the furnace, which seems to improve the final translucency.

The polishing characteristics are excellent. Suprinity takes a high polish more easily than e.max and maintains it better clinically. This makes it my preference for patients who are heavy grinders.

Strength and Durability

The strength numbers are impressive—consistently over 400 MPa in my testing. Clinically, this translates to confidence in thin sections and aggressive preparations. I'm comfortable going down to 0.8mm occlusal thickness with Suprinity in posterior applications.

Practical Comparison: When to Use What

After a year of working with all three materials, here's how I make my selection decisions:

Anterior Single Units

First choice: IPS e.max HT+ – The translucency and color matching are still the best in class. The proven track record gives me confidence for high-visibility cases.

Second choice: Celtra Press – When milling efficiency matters (same-day cases with tight scheduling) and esthetics are good-enough rather than perfect.

Posterior Single Units

First choice: Suprinity – The extra strength and excellent polishing make it ideal for heavy function cases.

Second choice: Celtra Press – Better milling efficiency and adequate strength for most posterior applications.

High-Volume Practices

Celtra Press wins – The improved bur life and faster milling times add up to significant cost savings and improved chair-side efficiency.

Challenging Preparations

Suprinity – When you need maximum strength or have preparations with thin sections, the zirconia reinforcement provides extra confidence.

Cost Considerations

Let's talk numbers because they matter. Per-unit block costs in 2026:

• IPS e.max: $45-52 per block (depending on translucency)
• Celtra Press: $38-44 per block
• Suprinity: $48-55 per block

But cost per block doesn't tell the whole story. Factor in milling time, bur life, and remake rates, and the economics shift. Celtra Press has the lowest total cost per restoration in my practice, while Suprinity has the lowest remake rate.

Integration with CEREC Workflow

All three materials integrate well with current CEREC software, but there are some nuances:

Material libraries: Make sure you're using the 2026 material parameters. The older settings don't account for the improved formulations and can result in suboptimal milling paths.

Biogeneric design: Suprinity works particularly well with more aggressive biogeneric proposals due to its strength characteristics. I'm comfortable with deeper fissures and sharper cuspal inclines.

Margin design: Celtra Press is the most forgiving of aggressive chamfer and shoulder preparations. The material handles thin margins better during milling and try-in.

Quality Control and Troubleshooting

Each material has its own common failure modes:

E.max: Watch for incomplete crystallization in thick sections. If you're seeing opacity variations, extend your hold time by 1-2 minutes.

Celtra Press: Occasional color shift in A1 and B1 shades. Using the slower heat-up rate I mentioned earlier resolves this 90% of the time.

Suprinity: Edge chipping during milling if burs aren't sharp. I replace finishing burs more frequently but get better final results.

Looking Ahead

The lithium disilicate space continues to evolve. All three manufacturers are working on improved formulations for 2027, with rumors of enhanced translucency and simplified firing cycles. But for now, these 2026 versions represent the best balance of strength, esthetics, and workability we've seen.

My practice stocks all three materials because each has its place. If I had to choose just one, it would probably be Celtra Press for its overall efficiency and good clinical results. But the beauty of CEREC is having options to match the specific needs of each case and patient.

FAQ

Can I use the same milling parameters for all three materials?

No, each material has different optimal settings. Suprinity requires more conservative feed rates, while Celtra Press can handle more aggressive milling. Using the wrong parameters can result in poor surface finish or premature bur wear.

Which material has the best color stability over time?

IPS e.max continues to have the best long-term color stability, followed closely by Suprinity. Celtra Press is good but shows slight color drift in lighter shades after 2-3 years clinically.

Are there any contraindications for heavy bruxers?

Suprinity is the best choice for heavy bruxers due to its superior strength and polishing characteristics. E.max is acceptable with proper occlusal design, while Celtra Press should be used cautiously in severe bruxism cases.

How do firing cycles affect final strength?

Proper firing is critical for all three materials. Under-firing can reduce strength by 15-20%, while over-firing can cause brittleness. Suprinity is most sensitive to firing variations, while Celtra Press is most forgiving.

Which material works best for thin veneers?

For veneers under 0.5mm, IPS e.max HT+ provides the best combination of strength and translucency. Suprinity can work but may appear slightly opaque, while Celtra Press is not recommended for very thin sections.

---