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
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAM
Laserdentium Mill 500?
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="Terry Whitty" data-source="post: 151095" data-attributes="member: 11301"><p>Hi, the correct purpose is the one you are happy with and is acceptable for your purpose.</p><p></p><p>Currently we make Ortho models, splint models, C and B models and no one is unhappy. For C and B we don't make implant models but are close to an acceptable solution.</p><p>We are using 3 Shape, exocad, Maestro 3D, Blue Sky Plan, Co Diagnistix NetFab, Rhino so we have a fair assortment to play with.</p><p>They all have their place.</p><p></p><p> Fact is if the appliance or restoration fits in the mouth, that's all the end user cares and that's what we focus on. Printing models helps us achieve this from scans. It's not perfect but it's a good solution.</p><p></p><p> I know some people will NEVER be happy with a 3D printer regardless of the brand, quality, accuracy , repeatability, or some people will argue brand A is better than brand B... Who cares it's actually nitpicking and missing the point... and possibly the boat. We have a great in house solution that works NOW . When something better cones along great, we will add it if viable. Actually looking at adding a new machine now for another related purpose.</p><p></p><p>I can tell you what they are lousy for...printing a digital scan then getting your wax instrument and trying to mix digital with analog and expecting a great outcome.</p><p>It does not work like that.</p><p></p><p>If we NEVER pour another impression ... It won't bother me a bit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Terry Whitty, post: 151095, member: 11301"] Hi, the correct purpose is the one you are happy with and is acceptable for your purpose. Currently we make Ortho models, splint models, C and B models and no one is unhappy. For C and B we don't make implant models but are close to an acceptable solution. We are using 3 Shape, exocad, Maestro 3D, Blue Sky Plan, Co Diagnistix NetFab, Rhino so we have a fair assortment to play with. They all have their place. Fact is if the appliance or restoration fits in the mouth, that's all the end user cares and that's what we focus on. Printing models helps us achieve this from scans. It's not perfect but it's a good solution. I know some people will NEVER be happy with a 3D printer regardless of the brand, quality, accuracy , repeatability, or some people will argue brand A is better than brand B... Who cares it's actually nitpicking and missing the point... and possibly the boat. We have a great in house solution that works NOW . When something better cones along great, we will add it if viable. Actually looking at adding a new machine now for another related purpose. I can tell you what they are lousy for...printing a digital scan then getting your wax instrument and trying to mix digital with analog and expecting a great outcome. It does not work like that. If we NEVER pour another impression ... It won't bother me a bit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAM
Laserdentium Mill 500?
Top
Bottom