<p><b>Aims and Hypothesis</b>: The objective of this study was the design and testing of a Prototype Computer Numerical Control (CNC) dental handpiece. We predicted that the CNC Prototype would be more accurate than the human participant prosthodontists in clinical simulation. </p><p> <b>Materials and Methods</b>: A Prototype CNC dental handpiece was developed from off the shelf components, assigned 100 typodont teeth (#18) for submission and 10 practice teeth. Single operator. Five prosthodontists, given 20 typodont teeth (#18) for submission and 10 for practice. Finished preparations were scanned with 3M True Definition^&reg; intraoral scanner outside of typodont, compared with Geomagic Control for RMSE. </p><p> <b>Results</b>: RMSE Prototype (N=100) was 0.40mm. RMSE Prosthodontists (N=100) was 0.55mm. One sided T test, mean difference &minus;.15mm (p&lt;.001, one sided CI &minus;.09). One Way ANOVA (F stat &lt;1, F=.526, p=.717), Spearman correlation Prototype RMSE vs order(&rho;=.1, p=.334), RMSE vs Bur (&rho;=.36, p&lt;.001); For each prosthodontist individually (N=20) RMSE vs Order Prosthodontist 4(&rho;=&minus;.54, p= .015). Prosthodontist 5 (&rho;= .58, p = .022). Prosthodontist 3 (&rho;=.16, p=.498), Prosthodontist 2 (&rho;=&minus;.07, p=.772), and Prosthodontist 1 (&rho;=&minus;.08, p=.741) Spearman correlation (N=20) RMSE vs Bur Prosthodontist 5 (&rho;= .51, p = .007), Prosthodontist 2 (&rho;=.46, p= .040), Prosthodontist 4 (&rho;=&minus;.07, p=.758), Prosthodontist 3 (&rho;=.18, p=.445), and Prosthodontist 1 (&rho;=.43, p=.059) </p><p> <b>Conclusion</b>: CNC Prototype achieved superior results in clinical simulation, attained on a modest budget with a modest level of research support. Work should continue on the next iteration of a prototype to address some of the limitations of movement, feedback, and emotional acceptance of a machine performing treatment from the perspective of a patient. </p>