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
Zirconium
Anterior Zirconia Monolithic
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="Car 54" data-source="post: 214156" data-attributes="member: 85"><p>As far as the socks on a rooster fit of the .dme files settings, seems to be a setting we've had to change for a long time. Even when Lava was the gorilla on the block, I used to have to tell the milling center (B.S. "before scanner") to increase the fit tighter by 2 steps. When I saw the setting for the Z Anterior this morning, I forgot how thick the cement gaps were, as well as the low distance to margin number. It was, "oh well, here we go again", in making those changes, but when I saw the thickness at .45, that's what really got my attention.</p><p></p><p>I guess I wonder why they wouldn't at least try to make up for those numbers? I kinda understand the "lets make everything fit" issue we've been dealing with for years, but in having low wall thickness numbers on a lower strength zirconia, I would think they would want to preserve their name and reputation as far as breaking or fractures. To me, that's the one really doesn't make sense <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite12" alt="o_O" title="Er... what? o_O" loading="lazy" data-shortname="o_O" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Car 54, post: 214156, member: 85"] As far as the socks on a rooster fit of the .dme files settings, seems to be a setting we've had to change for a long time. Even when Lava was the gorilla on the block, I used to have to tell the milling center (B.S. "before scanner") to increase the fit tighter by 2 steps. When I saw the setting for the Z Anterior this morning, I forgot how thick the cement gaps were, as well as the low distance to margin number. It was, "oh well, here we go again", in making those changes, but when I saw the thickness at .45, that's what really got my attention. I guess I wonder why they wouldn't at least try to make up for those numbers? I kinda understand the "lets make everything fit" issue we've been dealing with for years, but in having low wall thickness numbers on a lower strength zirconia, I would think they would want to preserve their name and reputation as far as breaking or fractures. To me, that's the one really doesn't make sense o_O [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Zirconium
Anterior Zirconia Monolithic
Top
Bottom