fire the prostho then.
rule 1 do no harm. the request for zirconia interface is in direct violation of that rule. besides that ethical concern, the FDA put a stop to this very thing with its restriction on who is allowed to mill the interface portion. this means you need a 510k to qualify for this before you get the software.
Technically the FDA has a problem with non 510k holders milling any part of the abutment, not just the interface.
Now we all know that’s just idiiotic because hand waxed or hand milled get grandfathered in as allowable, even though they are dramatically inferior to, Cad/cam...but that’s the “state science institute” for You
.
the method to circumvent this restriction is obvious and similarly idiotic, but why have to jump through meaningless hoops when all we want is to do it right.
I think it’s high time someone challenged it legally to get this ridiculous and flawed attempt at regulation overturned, especially while we have an anti-regulation executive branch.
Back on topic though: don’t do zirc interfaces, period. It’s just asking for problems, problems we, the doc and the patient don’t need. We know better, sometimes you are a lot better off to simply tell the sr that YOUR experience is that this is a bad idea, and askthem to trust you since you see a hell of a lot more restorative than a dentist does.
