Opaque behind a steeles facing??

[CPLZ]

Not much help

I posted a simple question in the removable forum about a month ago...what do you use for opaque behind a steeles facing and what material are you using to affix facings?

NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE.

I was raised in the lab biz but was out of it for 15 years. I;m simply trying to find out if newer materials are more suited to what I've used previously.

Seems like a remedial question...but that's the problem with people of advanced skills, they consider it a waste of their time to stoop to such low level questions.

I don't honestly believe that no one has an answer.

 

[CYNOSURER]

Well, I was sort of waiting too.

I don't opaque the backings. I use Ubar to prep the back and then lute it on with a matching Jet tooth acrylic. I used to just send the tooth with the frame and let the doc cement them in...don't know what they use.

And you're wrong about not answering low level questions. How else can we build up our following of hero worshipers if we don't answer the little people's questions.

 

[kcdt]

I honestly don't remember the question. How about tooth colored Sebond and either panavia or matching Jet acrylic, depending on the tooth. I suppose one could also silicoat and build up in composit directly.There's an awful lot of options today.
Honestly, this IS like asking how to mix plaster.

 

[labdude]

:coffee:
I can't mix plaster without getting it everywhere.
The guy did mention it was a simple thing Ken.

 

[TomZ]

I use SeBond. Multiple shades, light curing. Contact John Schible at Schutz Dental.

 

[JohnWilson]

I must have missed the original question but the Term "facing" in this industry can mean a lot of different things. If specifically you are referring to Steels "Flatback" facings there is no need to opaque the frame if the frame was made without having to modify the thickness of the facing. Just use Panavia or use Tims technique of c&B metalbond and cold cure tooth shade acrylic.

If we are talking a backing made like a ling plate with metal loops or retention beads we have started using the light cure products that Tom Z mentioned when we have a very thin denture tooth to cure to the frame. Prior to that we use Vita Zeta then cured conventional tooth shade acrylic to it which took a considerably more time to make it look good.

Lately we only use composite for facings on our frames. Either Sinfony or Premise are the two products we use now with wonderful results.

 

[billydte]

I use some Vita light cure stuff that my sales rep gave me, but I'm sure its way to expensive to justify buying just for these situations. I use Vita CC shaded acrylic to bond teeth to backings.

 

[kcdt]

:coffee:
I can't mix plaster without getting it everywhere.
The guy did mention it was a simple thing Ken.

Granted, but as John pointed out, there are numerous way to get there. I would HOPE that any lab working with RPDs has a functioning protocol/product to opaque the frame.

 

[TomZ]

Kenneth-
Dont bet on that.
I have met many technicians all over the country that do not and have no methodology for opaqueing a frame.

 

[kcdt]

Kenneth-
Dont bet on that.
I have met many technicians all over the country that do not and have no methodology for opaqueing a frame.

I find that rather sad.

 

[TomZ]

heres one sadder-

I know many labs that do not post process equilibrate their cases after processing.
Its no wonder their Drs. are never satisfied.

 

[labdude]

Granted, but as John pointed out, there are numerous way to get there. I would HOPE that any lab working with RPDs has a functioning protocol/product to opaque the frame.

Yup...just like you said Ken, simple.
Others find a do more to make more process.
No trying to upset here, but, is it simple or not simple.
Functioning protocol is sometimes new to some people for a product that is new to them. As well as, prorocol changes with time.
Thing is, CPZL is trying to update his knowledge, as he pointed out in his question.

 

[CYNOSURER]

Granted, but as John pointed out, there are numerous way to get there. I would HOPE that any lab working with RPDs has a functioning protocol/product to opaque the frame.

As John pointed out there is rare need to opaque a flat backing. Of course there is also no need to use those ugly Steele's facings either. But I find even with IPN there is rarely a need to opaque the backing. In fact, I find it rare to ever opaque a frame. Do you opaque the underside, too? I would think not as it is a waste of time. I would hope most labs would be working with RPDs that are designed so that opaquing is as wasted on the retention areas as they are the flat back facings or the underside. But I have to admit I've seen some pictures where the obtrusive saddle areas were so poorly design that reducing them was not an option and opaquing them was all one could do to hide the hideous workmanship. That is a problem when dealing with frame labs who seem to have no set up or acrylic experience. Sort of like hiring a waxer whose never finished...they tend to over build/bulk everything just to be on the safe side because they don't have an end product concept.

 

[kcdt]

Yup...just like you said Ken, simple.
Others find a do more to make more process.
No trying to upset here, but, is it simple or not simple.
Functioning protocol is sometimes new to some people for a product that is new to them. As well as, prorocol changes with time.
Thing is, CPZL is trying to update his knowledge, as he pointed out in his question.

I dunno, I took his response to mean he thinks we think we're all too good to talk to him. I didn't want to disappoint.

Simple? Blast the alloy and light cure on a few thin coats of Sebond- THAT'S not difficult.

 

[kcdt]

heres one sadder-

I know many labs that do not post process equilibrate their cases after processing.
Its no wonder their Drs. are never satisfied.

i know, the lack of care that can creep in is very depressing.

 

[kcdt]

As John pointed out there is rare need to opaque a flat backing. Of course there is also no need to use those ugly Steele's facings either. But I find even with IPN there is rarely a need to opaque the backing. In fact, I find it rare to ever opaque a frame. Do you opaque the underside, too? I would think not as it is a waste of time. I would hope most labs would be working with RPDs that are designed so that opaquing is as wasted on the retention areas as they are the flat back facings or the underside. But I have to admit I've seen some pictures where the obtrusive saddle areas were so poorly design that reducing them was not an option and opaquing them was all one could do to hide the hideous workmanship. That is a problem when dealing with frame labs who seem to have no set up or acrylic experience. Sort of like hiring a waxer whose never finished...they tend to over build/bulk everything just to be on the safe side because they don't have an end product concept.

Tim, I agree with your point that most conventional RPDs with properly designed retention areas do not require opaque. But the two most probable situations I see where it comes into play are anterior backings that required a lot of shaping to fit or attachment cases where the proximity of metal is more likely.
This is the case whether you adapt a denture tooth into the space or build one up from composite.
I read so many publications, that its hard NOT to know what's out there. Sometimes I forget that many don't.

 

[CYNOSURER]

Tim, I agree with your point that most conventional RPDs with properly designed retention areas do not require opaque. But the two most probable situations I see where it comes into play are anterior backings that required a lot of shaping to fit or attachment cases where the proximity of metal is more likely.
This is the case whether you adapt a denture tooth into the space or build one up from composite.
I read so many publications, that its hard NOT to know what's out there. Sometimes I forget that many don't.

Sorry, Ken. I think I misread the exchange between you and Tom. It came across like ya'll were chastising anyone who didn't opaque their saddle areas. Seems a picture of a frame with all its saddle areas covered in opaque crossed my mind.

You are correct. It is situationally driven protocol.

Seems we get requests to opaque only about half the lower implant retained cases we do. Visibility of the substructure whether it's hidden by enough tooth/acrylic material or lips is the determining factor...it couldn't be the minimal added cost. We have used both Seabond and Ropak (for pink) and its tooth colored sister (which Bredent didn't seem have an English name for). I prefered the tooth colored as it was applied like whiteout. The Ropak was a liquid/powder combo.
Like IDs, I wonder how many docs/patients don't want them because of things other than the minimal cost. I know some guys seem to labor over the decision when I ask them.

 

[labdude]

I dunno, I took his response to mean he thinks we think we're all too good to talk to him. I didn't want to disappoint.

Simple? Blast the alloy and light cure on a few thin coats of Sebond- THAT'S not difficult.

Thanks Ken.
Really, that is exactly the point. And mainly, exactly why this site came into being.
You guys aren't, as it were, to good to talk to him.
For what ever reason, this site came into being because of people being passed over at the other large dental site. The owner of this site made it to be EXACTLY what YOU are making it now.
A place where everyone gets his question answered, no matter how simple.
As the site grows, less posts like this one will be missed. I'm glad he reposted, mostly, thank you guys that helped out with the info related here!
Mike.

 

[kcdt]

Visibility of the substructure whether it's hidden by enough tooth/acrylic material or lips is the determining factor...it couldn't be the minimal added cost.

Exactly!

 

[kcdt]

You guys aren't, as it were, to good to talk to him.

At the risk of sounding "nice", I will admit to applying some dry wit to the topic. Honestly, I just don't remember seeing the question, as i would've answered (seeing as this is the only place I can talk dentures and not bore those near and dear to DEATH).
The only thing I dislike is how all the other forums of days past imploded into shouting matches about anything BUT technology, and that's why I try to stay on topic.
personally, I like how the removable guys and gals really get into these discussions, these threads seem to have more life to them, but maybe I'm just partial (yuk yuk).