Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Community discussion
Case Presentations
Full Upper Implant Bridge
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JohnWilson" data-source="post: 31170" data-attributes="member: 213"><p>Plastic parts were developed for a reason, and I bet it was for clients that screamed when they saw what the implant companies were charging for a gold/plastic UCLA.</p><p></p><p>The reason to go with a machined base over plastic is that no matter how perfect your expansion/casting is they will never replicate what a machined piece will fit like. True passivity on big CAST frames such as this is very very difficult.</p><p></p><p>I would also bet that a higher percentage of multiple unit restorations get delivered with out Total passivity as well. The single screw lift test is something that many clients do not know about nor care about. </p><p></p><p>Its been many many years but I remember the original Externally hexed Branemarks were the most popular fixture, we had tools to lap the mating interface when utilizing cast plastic parts. I always wondered why they even went to the trouble of developing something to play catch up with when they had a machine part developed already.</p><p></p><p>Then I remembered how cheap and short sided many clients are.</p><p></p><p>Mark could chime in here with tons more scientific data, he is really a guru on these things and I respect his knowledge and experience.</p><p></p><p>In a nutshell there has been a tremendous amount of studies showing issues with non passive frames and the use of plastic parts along with screw loosening issues associated with them as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JohnWilson, post: 31170, member: 213"] Plastic parts were developed for a reason, and I bet it was for clients that screamed when they saw what the implant companies were charging for a gold/plastic UCLA. The reason to go with a machined base over plastic is that no matter how perfect your expansion/casting is they will never replicate what a machined piece will fit like. True passivity on big CAST frames such as this is very very difficult. I would also bet that a higher percentage of multiple unit restorations get delivered with out Total passivity as well. The single screw lift test is something that many clients do not know about nor care about. Its been many many years but I remember the original Externally hexed Branemarks were the most popular fixture, we had tools to lap the mating interface when utilizing cast plastic parts. I always wondered why they even went to the trouble of developing something to play catch up with when they had a machine part developed already. Then I remembered how cheap and short sided many clients are. Mark could chime in here with tons more scientific data, he is really a guru on these things and I respect his knowledge and experience. In a nutshell there has been a tremendous amount of studies showing issues with non passive frames and the use of plastic parts along with screw loosening issues associated with them as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Community discussion
Case Presentations
Full Upper Implant Bridge
Top
Bottom