Anyone Milling Emax/Origin machine

[charles007]

Just curious if anyone is milling emax using a B&D Origin machine, or receiving emax cad from a lab using that machine. How does it compare to pressing emax ?
Just curious since we know cerec inlab can't match pressing emax .

Anyone using a scanner using Diadem or other companies for emax cad, how does it compare to pressing ?
I'm not trying to bash Diadem, Origin, or other companies, just like to know if emax can be milled as good as pressing, or better from the technogy that's out today.

 

[Mark Jackson]

Just curious if anyone is milling emax using a B&D Origin machine, or receiving emax cad from a lab using that machine. How does it compare to pressing emax ?
Just curious since we know cerec inlab can't match pressing emax .

Anyone using a scanner using Diadem or other companies for emax cad, how does it compare to pressing ?
I'm not trying to bash Diadem, Origin, or other companies, just like to know if emax can be milled as good as pressing, or better from the technogy that's out today.

Milling eMax Cad works great with a good machine and a good technician. I know Diadem is turning out a very fine product. I haven't seen anything off the other machine you mentioned. I know I wasn't impressed with what we got off a Cerec machine.

The problem I have is this: The cost for materials and tooling is too high for my tastes. I have also found the cutting is too slow for the kind of volume we have, and the reductive nature of the process is inefficient.

I'd rather use my scanners and design software to cut out a wax pattern, refine it a bit and press it out. My cost is almost half and the results are excellent and stronger. FWIW.

 

[paulg100]

As far as i understand it, stuff in the roeders (500k+ $) bracket, are the only mills milling glass and getting close to press results at the current time, and def at least 5 axis.

Even then i have seen people complaining that the results are still not as good as pressed, although i know a very world renowned tech is using a mill center with a roeders as an overflow outlet for emax and he is happy with the results, so that sais alot to me.

Lets face it, with pressing you are forcing molten glass into a mold which is going to flow around pretty much any geometry you put in front of it. I have pressed units at less than .1 with 360 sealed margins at x20 .

Is there ever going to be a mill in the near future that can match that?

"I'd rather use my scanners and design software to cut out a wax pattern, refine it a bit and press it out. My cost is almost half and the results are excellent and stronger. FWIW." : That would also be my current choice even if i could afford a 500k mill.

Maybe more consistent (in the case of some mills consistently bad),but more accurate? popcorn

 

[raduh]

As far as i understand it, stuff in the roeders (500k+ $) bracket, are the only mills milling glass and getting close to press results at the current time, and def at least 5 axis.

Even then i have seen people complaining that the results are still not as good as pressed, although i know a very world renowned tech is using a mill center with a roeders as an overflow outlet for emax and he is happy with the results, so that sais alot to me.

Lets face it, with pressing you are forcing molten glass into a mold which is going to flow around pretty much any geometry you put in front of it. I have pressed units at less than .1 with 360 sealed margins at x20 .

Is there ever going to be a mill in the near future that can match that?

"I'd rather use my scanners and design software to cut out a wax pattern, refine it a bit and press it out. My cost is almost half and the results are excellent and stronger. FWIW." : That would also be my current choice even if i could afford a 500k mill.

Maybe more consistent (in the case of some mills consistently bad),but more accurate? popcorn

a very good machine, and very expensive but very precise :
DMG | DECKEL MAHO | GILDEMEISTER - ULTRASONIC 10 | Machining of advanced materials

 

[paulg100]

but have you seen any emax milled with it?

I best pressing still wins for accuracy...

 

[sixonice]

Just curious if anyone is milling emax using a B&D Origin machine, or receiving emax cad from a lab using that machine. How does it compare to pressing emax ?
Just curious since we know cerec inlab can't match pressing emax .

Anyone using a scanner using Diadem or other companies for emax cad, how does it compare to pressing ?
I'm not trying to bash Diadem, Origin, or other companies, just like to know if emax can be milled as good as pressing, or better from the technogy that's out today.

i am agreeing with the other guys that pressed e.max is defintely the best and most accurate terms of pressing lithium disilicate. you have to look at the profitability of pressing versus milled as well. pressing is upwards of being 40% more profitable for the laboratory. if you want to get into a combination of pressing and CAD/CAM technologies, i am really liking the design work on a 3Shape platform then having my designs printed in wax (around $3.00 per unit),sent back to the lab, then spruing and pressing.

 

[Mark Jackson]

if you want to get into a combination of pressing and CAD/CAM technologies, i am really liking the design work on a 3Shape platform then having my designs printed in wax (around $3.00 per unit),sent back to the lab, then spruing and pressing.

For the cost of a pressing oven you can mill the wax ups in house. And I agree with you, it really is the only way to go.

 

[Mountain Goat]

Friends who own another lab just received a couple of Emax's milled on an Origin...they were horrified with the margins.........not good enough...I warned them about pressed Emax compared to milled....they no listen.....again......ROUND burs compared to a printed pattern/pressed, for me it is a no brainer

 

[DMC]

eMax needs to be milled with a grinding stratagy from the sides going inward (X and Y axis). Using a diamond or side cutting tool. Zirconia and wax get cut with a round bur from the Z axis down).

Very different method of cutting.
It is time consuming and tool life is poor.

Labs may be tempted to speed up the milling by choosing a rougher cutting milling stratagy. It's the only way to break even, unless you have an Ultra-sonic mill. Then you can rip thru the majority of material without going broke and not sacrificing the accuracy of the job.

The original data sent to the CAM needs to be accurate of course to have any chance of getting a good result. Bad scan data = less than desired results.

 

[jamie newlands]

Just curious if anyone is milling emax using a B&D Origin machine, or receiving emax cad from a lab using that machine. How does it compare to pressing emax ?
Just curious since we know cerec inlab can't match pressing emax .

Anyone using a scanner using Diadem or other companies for emax cad, how does it compare to pressing ?
I'm not trying to bash Diadem, Origin, or other companies, just like to know if emax can be milled as good as pressing, or better from the technogy that's out today.

HI guys,

I have just taken a lab tech from waxing and pressing to using inlab for milling. A lot of the issues relating to fit that are being reported are not reflected in the peer review literature that is out in the public domain. It is also FWIW not my observation. I would suggest anyone having issues with fit should look at their parameters and also the burs being chosen to mill with.

 

[charles007]

Welcome to DLN Jamie, its always good to see new blood on the board that we all can trash the first day hehe
Since you have an inlab, don't let your guard down.

How well of a fit are you seeing on everyday preps, not just the text book cases. Do you see any traces of open margins at 10x ?

Charles

 

[Mark Jackson]

HI guys,

I have just taken a lab tech from waxing and pressing to using inlab for milling. A lot of the issues relating to fit that are being reported are not reflected in the peer review literature that is out in the public domain. It is also FWIW not my observation. I would suggest anyone having issues with fit should look at their parameters and also the burs being chosen to mill with.

How long have you had your mill and how many units have been through it? For a dentist cutting a couple units a day, it might be okay, but for any kind of production it's just not the right tool for the job. In my opinion anaway.

 

[paulg100]

Jamie, as a dentist using CEREC you will know how critical prep design is for getting anything even close to a sealed margin with this mill.

95% of the preps labs receive are not suitable for milling and this is one of the major problems.

Anyone in doubt should go speak to an engineering company that are manufacturing milling units for precision components and see how much they laugh at the prospect of milling to a 40 micron tolerance on a 3 axis unit that weighs 30kg.

With that in mind i would suggest that the peer review data mentioned is complete garbage.

Shame to hear that the Origin results were not to great but not suprised, especially if comparing to pressed.

 

[jamie newlands]

Welcome to DLN Jamie, its always good to see new blood on the board that we all can trash the first day hehe
Since you have an inlab, don't let your guard down.

How well of a fit are you seeing on everyday preps, not just the text book cases. Do you see any traces of open margins at 10x ?

Charles

Hi Charles,

thanks for the reply. I think what I am trying to say is that is you look at the peer reviewed independant studies on marginal fit on inlab systems then the results speak for themselves. I understand that when someone tries something and it doesnt deliver it is disappointing. I am a sad enough cad cam geek to admit that I have read most research on milling tolerances and well researched marginal fit for the majority of cad cam systems out there and the inlab is about the 3rd best on average. From a clinicians prespective i work under 4x magnification for all fixed pros. Margins from our cerec / inlab machines consistently outperform non cad cam systems. We do however work from scans rather than physical impressions so therefore miss out many of the pitfalls associated with physical impressions.

fwiw, just my thoughts on an interesting subject.

looking forward to many more discussions. PS i joined this forum because I wanted to learn from gifted technicians like yourselves.

 

[jamie newlands]

How long have you had your mill and how many units have been through it? For a dentist cutting a couple units a day, it might be okay, but for any kind of production it's just not the right tool for the job. In my opinion anaway.

Hi Mark,

I have had cerec since 2006. At present we do over 1300 units per year with a view to moving that up to around 2500, over the next 12 months. I have worked with some top lab techs and had the privelege of working with and lecturing for dentsply, sirona, ivoclar, 3m over the last years. Cad Cam is my passion within dentistry and whilst I understand your viewpoint I guess it depends what the job is. For our needs we place a lot of single visit restorations. As a consequence cerec / inlab is the only tool for the job within my particular situation.

Going forwards we recently employed a CDT to work in house for bridgework production. The ability to stack mill and then mill superstructures in emax has enabled one lab tech (of 16 years experience) produce more units than he could with 4 staff historically. Whilst I realise this model may not work in all commercial lab situations for our own needs it is working well.

Hope this helps.

j

 

[jamie newlands]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comments. I am only trying to give an even handed real world scientifically backed view of the situation.

"With regards to your comments, 95% of preps are not suitable for a millled restoration."
Can I ask
1: Where the 95% figure comes from? is it a statistic based on opinion or on clinical success rates over time?
2: Whilst I appreciate your comment "Anyone in doubt should go speak to an engineering company that are manufacturing milling units for precision components and see how much they laugh at the prospect of milling to a 40 micron tolerance on a 3 axis unit that weighs 30kg. " You are both misinformed and incorrect. When considering the realtive significance of scientific data peer reviewed independant RCT carry the highest significance as they are the accurate and non subjective. The opinion of an "expert" within a field without independant data to back it up is considered the least important factor when making clinical decisions within the medical profession. It is for this reason that you should research your field before passin comment.
3: The cerec and inlab machines are considered 5 axis milling machines
4: I do not see what the weight of a milling machine has to do with the accuracy
5: "With that in mind i would suggest that the peer review data mentioned is complete garbage." Peer reivewed data is THE mainstay of progress within dentistry. I am surprised and appauled by your lack of understanding or disrespect for what is considered the most important means of communicating progress and efficacy withnin clinical dentistry.

JMHO

Jamie, as a dentist using CEREC you will know how critical prep design is for getting anything even close to a sealed margin with this mill.

95% of the preps labs receive are not suitable for milling and this is one of the major problems.

Hi a

Anyone in doubt should go speak to an engineering company that are manufacturing milling units for precision components and see how much they laugh at the prospect of milling to a 40 micron tolerance on a 3 axis unit that weighs 30kg.

With that in mind i would suggest that the peer review data mentioned is complete garbage.

Shame to hear that the Origin results were not to great but not suprised, especially if comparing to pressed.

 

[DMC]

Jamie Newlands- Dr Newlands is the head of the centre for Cerec excellence in Scotland which is based in The Berkeley Clinic. Dr Newlands underwent his postgraduate training in Cerec and advanced cosmetic dentistry in Londons Harley Street. He lectures internationally and has had several papers published on restorative and cosmetic dentistry. He also teaches at Glasgow Dental Hospital and School and is a member of the Royal College of Homeopathy.

You seem like a Cerec sales person. I bet you are on the Sirona payroll. LOL You speak for Sirona, no? If so, you opinion does not count here. You have already been brainwashed and pay with money.

 

[DMC]

(This guy is a very famous Dentist from UK)

 

[jamie newlands]

Jamie Newlands- Dr Newlands is the head of the centre for Cerec excellence in Scotland which is based in The Berkeley Clinic. Dr Newlands underwent his postgraduate training in Cerec and advanced cosmetic dentistry in Londons Harley Street. He lectures internationally and has had several papers published on restorative and cosmetic dentistry. He also teaches at Glasgow Dental Hospital and School and is a member of the Royal College of Homeopathy.

You seem like a Cerec sales person. I bet you are on the Sirona payroll. LOL You speak for Sirona, no? If so, you opinion does not count here. You have already been brainwashed and pay with money.

hi ***, please read the scientific data on marginal fit and not the blurb on my website. besides, what you have quoted above doesn't make me wrong. also, it's not my opinion it is research that i am quoting.

 

[DMC]

I can take your Sirona scan data and show you that the data points are father apart than 50microns. Then add in the slop for the mill......

It can be proven with real data. Not an opinion by peers.


It may fit on a smooth text book prep (by chance)

but it is impossible to achieve the standard of Dentistry in the USA with that scan data and mill.

Send me an oral scan file!

I'll tell ya EXACTLY what we are dealing with here.

scott@*************************

email for instructions for uploading a large cdt file.

I will post screen shots of your scan data, total data points, total triangles, distance between points at the margin, etc.