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
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Equipment
Accuracy, and how we define it.
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="Wainwright" data-source="post: 304181" data-attributes="member: 20457"><p>A 3D IOS like traditional impression materials are just tools that are only as good as the user. They both are one of the core layers of a onion, meaning from the patients mouth to the final product there are many steps in the process that stack up, good or bad. The really difficult part of the equation is everyone has different expectations on what good really is, technicians and dentists.</p><p></p><p>I think its a mistake to get into the technical details of one part of the overall process, like a 3D IOS for example. The further you dig the less clear the answer or even the question is. To top it off, it can just be downright confusing.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the iTero and its technology isn't great for veneers, what about the prep style, or tissue management.</p><p></p><p>I think I'd handle this the same way I would a traditional impression that wasn't good enough for a case, we made the restoration based on the information/impression provided and this is the result. If it does not meet expectations what can we do when the patient is in the chair next time to assure the best result. Maybe take a second impression using a different material as a confirmation of fit or take special care to make sure all critical areas of the prepared teeth are as clear as possible.</p><p></p><p>Communication and working toward a shared goal is a universal guiding principle in analog or digital workflows.</p><p></p><p>Don't dig too deep, you might hit water.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wainwright, post: 304181, member: 20457"] A 3D IOS like traditional impression materials are just tools that are only as good as the user. They both are one of the core layers of a onion, meaning from the patients mouth to the final product there are many steps in the process that stack up, good or bad. The really difficult part of the equation is everyone has different expectations on what good really is, technicians and dentists. I think its a mistake to get into the technical details of one part of the overall process, like a 3D IOS for example. The further you dig the less clear the answer or even the question is. To top it off, it can just be downright confusing. Maybe the iTero and its technology isn't great for veneers, what about the prep style, or tissue management. I think I'd handle this the same way I would a traditional impression that wasn't good enough for a case, we made the restoration based on the information/impression provided and this is the result. If it does not meet expectations what can we do when the patient is in the chair next time to assure the best result. Maybe take a second impression using a different material as a confirmation of fit or take special care to make sure all critical areas of the prepared teeth are as clear as possible. Communication and working toward a shared goal is a universal guiding principle in analog or digital workflows. Don't dig too deep, you might hit water. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Equipment
Accuracy, and how we define it.
Top
Bottom