Problem milling zirc custom abutments

[DMC]

I kinda like the new guy!

 

[paulg100]

disturbed:

why don't you wait for new studies to be conducted on supportive frames with the latest firing protocols before resining Zr to the dustbin.

All the failures and poor study results we are seeing are based on unsupportive frames with fast cooling, which we now know is bad news for a material with such a low thermal conductivity.

sure i don't need to remind you what a disaster bonding to non-precious was when it was first introduced. It took time to hone the protocols and layering ceramic for this material, the same as it has taken the time with zirconia.

some recent literature i have seen is referencing failure rates for zirconia at around the same as metal at 4%.

as for FC ZR theres no long term data for this yet so again why not wait instead of acting so predjudice.

Some of the worlds most highly respected techs and opinion leaders are flying the flag for zirconia and have even stopped using metal completely in their labs.
These guys are also working with the worlds most highly respected and clinical opinion leaders but for some reason you seem to know everything they don't?

maybe you should call them to rubbish their research, id love to be a fly on the wall.

 

[disturbed]

AAARRRGGG!!! ok.. lets learn some more..cast a THIN piece of non-precious, than cast a THIN piece of ..o i dunno lets say 65 SF.. opaque them.. fire them multiple times.. bend them.. you will see the opaque comes off the non precious because the oxidation layer is much thicker from multiple (<5) firings while it sticks to the 65 SF, cracks slightly , but sticks, because the bond is better...because there is less crap coming from the metal that oxidazes....non-precious is crap,non-precious is where you PFM failure rates are coming from.. just cuz something works and we can get it out the door, it makes the 5 years before it breaks so insurance covers it, and we get our money does not mean we have done our job well. our restorations can, have, and should last 20+ years, if we understand FUNCTION and MATERIAL SCIENCE.

I HAVE brought these Zirconium issues up to the 3M masterminds behind Lava, when I asked him "what happens to the crystalyn structure of the porcelain when you overfire it to get your "atomization"?" (by 100+..LOL){this was there solution to delamination, that was the MAIN topic at the Q and A part of the meeting}.....his answer.."uhh...well..I'm not sure", asked his buddy, he didn't know either. You shoulda been there paul.. it was an eye opener, this was at the chicago midwinter with their best minds there.. It has and always will be in OUR hands to KNOW our material sciences. they are mostly slightly trained SALESMEN at this point.

I have brought you something to consider and am willing to prove anything I have said with simple science. I am happy to be here and will do my best to tell the masses what I know. did you know those silver amalgam fillings are 50% murcury?? all of them, not some.. thats how they flow..murcury injected into your skull.. boy that idea lasted a while eh? does that make it any less of a BAD IDEA?

 

[disturbed]

I've been doing it for 10 years,where did I say I was a production lab?

....10 years eh.. lets TEST you.. what type of zirc were you using 10 years ago? and what were you layering to it??:lol:

 

[rkm rdt]

Lava

 

[paulg100]

"non-precious is crap,non-precious is where you PFM failure rates are coming from"

Man i really dunno where you get your data from, or are you making up off the top of your head?

Non-Precious is the most used metal in the UK and i cant tell you how many 10's of thousands of crowns on non-precious weve done over the last 20years.

The failure rate from breaking or delamination is virtually unheard of from our experiance.

im not saying its a great material, it casts poorly and is not biocompatible but from a robustness point of view, there is absolutly nothing wrong with it.

"I have brought you something to consider and am willing to prove anything I have said with simple science."

Sorry to state the obvious but unless you have proper controlled data from invitro and simulated study then you cant proove anything apart from how ignorant and predujice your posts are.

 

[TheLabGuy]

I am happy to be here and will do my best to tell the masses what I know. did you know those silver amalgam fillings are 50% murcury??

"The Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC),managed by the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, reports that the total mercury sold in dental amalgam in 2004 was 30.4 tons (26% of mercury in all products)" Source

Now if you're going to be looked upon as a person with factual knowledge it might be best to start with accurate data.

 

[mrcadcam]

....10 years eh.. lets TEST you.. what type of zirc were you using 10 years ago? and what were you layering to it??:lol:

or procera, dont forget about the original. This guy must have just got in the industry. Its going to be ok man.

Do what works for you and F the rest man. No point getting mad about techniques, or big production labs that could mean ****e on the bottom of your shoe.

The bigs lab get all the crappy work that the smaller labs turn down anyway and then dont make much profit from it in return because they offer their work so cheap. Dentist own them instead of vice versa.

Fielspathic works for you, do fieldspathic.

 

[disturbed]

"non-precious is crap,non-precious is where you PFM failure rates are coming from"

Man i really dunno where you get your data from, or are you making up off the top of your head?

Non-Precious is the most used metal in the UK and i cant tell you how many 10's of thousands of crowns on non-precious weve done over the last 20years.

The failure rate from breaking or delamination is virtually unheard of from our experiance.

im not saying its a great material, it casts poorly and is not biocompatible but from a robustness point of view, there is absolutly nothing wrong with it.

"I have brought you something to consider and am willing to prove anything I have said with simple science."

Sorry to state the obvious but unless you have proper controlled data from invitro and simulated study then you cant proove anything apart from how ignorant and predujice your posts are.

do the test I stated above, it won't cost you hardly anything in materials, I do my own "simulated studies" whenever I can in lab a few times before I present my info to anyone. Just try it so you can see the statements I am making ARE tested fact. I tried 3 different sources for my non-precious, they all reacted the same, heavy oxidation layer weakened the bond between the porc. and the metal. europe eh? are you in a country where palladium (
Pd) is considered carcinegenic and not available?

 

[disturbed]

"The Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC),managed by the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, reports that the total mercury sold in dental amalgam in 2004 was 30.4 tons (26% of mercury in all products)" Source

Now if you're going to be looked upon as a person with factual knowledge it might be best to start with accurate data.

I will dig out the material breakdown I have (from 2006) and see if i can get it posted. It lists 50%+ mercury and was the most commonly used brand. I think this is stating that 26% of ALL mercury made in 2004 was used in making amalgam..but I will research it more. thanks for the link.

yup, The Lab Guy needs to do his research before he trys that again.. I can and WILL prove all I have to say.. don't try state crap unless you have the knowledge to back it, and don't talk to me about factual knowledge when you don't understand what you are reading..
go to Dental Amalgam Mercury Fillings and read the FIRST sentence..

I am thinking you just lost some rep power now....

careful, I was trained for 10 years by a 45+ year master tech, go against me and I will put your face in the mud. The old guys knew how to know, unfortunately too many of us have turned into crown and bridge salesmen.

 

[disturbed]

Lava

....lava...he says he was using lava 10 years ago...

 

[user name]

Lava has been in use for just over 10 years now. Dental amalgams dont contain near 50% mercury. Rex 111 when used properly has a much superior bond over 65SF.

Other than acting like a douche and not having facts, Im sure youre a decent guy Disturbed.

 

[TheLabGuy]

I will dig out the material breakdown I have (from 2006) and see if i can get it posted. It lists 50%+ mercury and was the most commonly used brand. I think this is stating that 26% of ALL mercury made in 2004 was used in making amalgam..but I will research it more. thanks for the link.

yup, The Lab Guy needs to do his research before he trys that again.. I can and WILL prove all I have to say.. don't try state crap unless you have the knowledge to back it, and don't talk to me about factual knowledge when you don't understand what you are reading..
go to Dental Amalgam Mercury Fillings and read the FIRST sentence..

I am thinking you just lost some rep power now....

careful, I was trained for 10 years by a 45+ year master tech, go against me and I will put your face in the mud. The old guys knew how to know, unfortunately too many of us have turned into crown and bridge salesmen.

I use the EPA's facts and you fire back to me with some rinky-dink blog, not even a formal website's information? It doesn't even have anything on it, other than someone's BS about how they are such a great organization. Wow, at least make it a fun pissing match, you're making it too easy for a fellar like me. Seriously, pull up your dress and show us what you're really made of

 

[rkm rdt]

"I was trained for 10 years by a 45+ year master tech, go against me and I will put your face in the mud".

Too bad the old bugger had to work an extra 5 years before you got the hang of wiping his a$$...*snort*

 

[DMC]

....lava...he says he was using lava 10 years ago...

It's been around for longer than that.
My 3M software has an original patent of the late 1990s.
Mills were absolutly sold in the US and Canada a decade ago.

I was just like Disturbed when I first joined....been banned about Three times so far.

 

[paulg100]

"I was trained for 10 years by a 45+ year master tech, go against me and I will put your face in the mud".

By the tone of your posts you sound about 10 years old. I guess they must start tech training early where you come from. :baby:

and did you say you run your own business? i sure hope not.

 

[TheLabGuy]

"I was trained for 10 years by a 45+ year master tech, go against me and I will put your face in the mud".

Too bad the old bugger had to work an extra 5 years before you got the hang of wiping his a$$...*snort*

Thanks, spit out my water on that one...*double snort*

 

[k2 Ceramic Studio]

DISTURBED is going to put new people off this site unless he tones it down a bit, some guy asked a question over emax and proper got his head bitten off, he makes me smile with his “I know it all attitude”, funny how the ones who claim to know everything know so very little, and especially people skills!
I am sure your're a nice guy just back off a bit.

 

[user name]

Those of you who think you know it all upset those of us who do.
You cant have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
There are no stupid questions..just stupid people.
Never mistake knowledge for wisdom.

 

[TheLabGuy]

Those of you who think you know it all upset those of us who do.
You cant have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
There are no stupid questions..just stupid people.
Never mistake knowledge for wisdom.

Very true...you can't argue with an idiot, he is armed with everything at his disposal and all you can bring to the fight are the facts.