1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lava vs e.max

Discussion in 'Fixed' started by Travis, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. Travis
    Paranoid

    Travis Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,758
    Likes Received:
    45
    Please express your views on this topic.

    What are your likes and dislikes?
    What is the future for these products?

    I know there are other zirconium manufactures and many more all ceramic setups but I think these two are the most common.
  2. Pronto

    Pronto Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    1
    At a recent lecture I attended, Dr Skramstad brought out this report on the Emax touting it's strength. It is strong but I contend that the issues with YZ are really operator error. Big labs pumping out thousands of them with no understanding of porcelain support design or proper treatment of frame for porcelain application sets up a higher failure rate. Accepting cases with improper clearance also adds to the failure rate. So just like years ago when pfg was a big turning point in the lab industry, many labs didn't know how to work the technique so there was a lot of failures. Those that could adapt and refine their work got successful at it. I feel it's the same for YZ. The idea of a monolithic structure does have inherent strength to it though. The Emax blue block is getting more popular with Cerec drs for it's strength in the molar region. Again, as time goes on they will push it to beyond it's parameters and they will have failures as they have with felspathic porcelains. For maximum strength it still needs to be 1.5mm thick and bonded. I can see docs trying to mill a .5 and cementing it (Dr Skramstad eluded to going thinner). When it fails they'll say it's crappy material. Worse, labs that accept cases that are too tight will just make the case for it "not being a good material" or the lab sucks. So IMHO, both materials have their place. Each can work out nicely or be a failure waiting to happen. As a lab we have to make sure nothing we do increases that chance. The might be asking for more clearance or better training designers on what is a proper design. Dr Skramstad said he doesn't see Emax ever being used for bridges in the future. He said everything they experimented with other than tiny pontics hanging off a single failed. So at least for a while YZ will be the only no metal way to go for bridges.
    Here's a link for information on the Emax from Dr. Skramstad.
    Townie Central Login Don't know if it will work if you are not a member...
  3. sixonice

    sixonice New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    3
    e.max PRESSED Lithium Disilicate is indicated for 3-unit ANTERIOR bridges with the 2nd pre-molar being the most distal abutment. 16 sq. mm. connectors must be observed for maximum strength. As for e.max monolithic single units vs. zirconia veneered single units, there is no comparison between the two in strength & longevity. e.max (monolithic) outperforms zirconia (taking into account mimimal prep & material thicknesses for each material are observed!). Both conventionally cemented. Testing done by Dr. Van Thompson - NYU. Read on: IPS e.max Lithium Disilicate | Ivoclar Vivadent
  4. vernelmay

    vernelmay New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lava vs. emax

    I just returned from training at 3m. The report from NYU was flawed. The numbers that emax is throwing around are untrue. This is according to 3m. They said they are going to be releasing this information today. I haven't seen it yet. When I do I will post it here.
  5. neila

    neila Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    I personally do not believe anything 3M says. They have changed there story a number of times and will only show you studies that support their product. It is odd how now 3M has chosen to open the architecture of their scanner?
  6. JayH

    JayH Geek

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not really open. The only thing you can do is export the final design to an open format through the LavaConnect servers.
  7. vernelmay

    vernelmay New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lava vs. emax

    I wish that 3m would open the scanner to other products that could be milled or printed. I think this is a major problem with this technology. I have a small lab and can't afford to buy every scanner. The Lava really is not open architecture. As was mentioned by Jay. There are manufactures of sla models, implant abutments, with Atlantis, and of course the Lava mill labs. That is it.
  8. karabear

    karabear Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    10
    View attachment 486

    At the risk of gratuitous self-promotion, our printers work with files from 3M that have been uploaded to their Lava Connect site. You do have to purchase a module from 3M that allows you to add us as Rapid Prototyping Manufacturing center to your list. The cost of which is 1k unless you have a service agreement with them for your scanner, in which case it is free.
    K
  9. sixonice

    sixonice New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    3
    I just watched the Dental Products Report replay available (I couldn't watch the Live broadcast on Wednesday evening). Very good information on zirconia versus e.max Lithium Disilicate versus PFM's. The video is about 55 minutes. For those interested in in-depth, scientific documentation about what we already know is happening with zirconia, you will appreciate it. Also compares PFM studies. Just click the link and sit back and watch.
    Event Lobby (EVENT: 163956)

Share This Page