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
Fixed
Lava vs e.max
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="Pronto" data-source="post: 13243" data-attributes="member: 590"><p>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. </p><p>Here's a link for information on the Emax from Dr. Skramstad. </p><p><a href="http://www.towniecentral.com/MessageBoard/thread.aspx?s=2&f=96&t=129639&v=1" target="_blank">Townie Central Login</a> Don't know if it will work if you are not a member...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pronto, post: 13243, member: 590"] 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. [url=http://www.towniecentral.com/MessageBoard/thread.aspx?s=2&f=96&t=129639&v=1]Townie Central Login[/url] Don't know if it will work if you are not a member... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Community discussion
Fixed
Lava vs e.max
Top
Bottom