
rkm rdt
Well-Known Member
Full Member
- Messages
- 20,776
- Reaction score
- 3,288
I use 3 shape. model builder.
So I wonder where the discrepancy lies between all of the experiences. .... Is it where they're manufactured, who makes them, which shift? I'm truly curious.
Maybe, but just not that. The differences between programs for model building on the lab end, even down to the settings we use. On the production side: the difference in whose hands work the printers, pack, and check quality control. If some of us are having problems, and some aren't, then it can't be 100% the printers they use.As in Argen Canada compared to Argen U.S.?
Surety of output quality will always be limited by/to the least capable, aware, and interested person involved.Maybe, but just not that. The differences between programs for model building on the lab end, even down to the settings we use. On the production side: the difference in whose hands work the printers, pack, and check quality control. If some of us are having problems, and some aren't, then it can't be 100% the printers they use.
If model is not hollowed on the bottom, it will be rejected (they used to just print, but not anymore)So I reccently have been having jobs cancelled by Argen for model printing. 9 times out of 10 when I call the techs can't really pinpoint why. As you can imagine, I'm getting behind on my work. Anyone been having problems with model printing cases being accepted? The main reason they come up with is probably an EXOCAD issue...
Also, I'd love to hear recommendations of other printing companies to use.
Thanks humans
So I reccently have been having jobs cancelled by Argen for model printing. 9 times out of 10 when I call the techs can't really pinpoint why. As you can imagine, I'm getting behind on my work. Anyone been having problems with model printing cases being accepted? The main reason they come up with is probably an EXOCAD issue...
Also, I'd love to hear recommendations of other printing companies to use.
Thanks humans
If model is not hollowed on the bottom, it will be rejected (they used to just print, but not anymore)So I reccently have been having jobs cancelled by Argen for model printing. 9 times out of 10 when I call the techs can't really pinpoint why. As you can imagine, I'm getting behind on my work. Anyone been having problems with model printing cases being accepted? The main reason they come up with is probably an EXOCAD issue...
Also, I'd love to hear recommendations of other printing companies to use.
Thanks humans!
I have checked them on that. I have used the same files to have the models remade only adding a digit to the file name to get around the duplicate file problem and had models come to me with wildly different fits. As I replied in a different post, I have models from them that the DIMs fit different from one prepped site to the next, then I submitted the same file and get a model that all the DIMs fit perfectly. In my case, not the program, it has to be in the Argen process.Maybe, but just not that. The differences between programs for model building on the lab end, even down to the settings we use. On the production side: the difference in whose hands work the printers, pack, and check quality control. If some of us are having problems, and some aren't, then it can't be 100% the printers they use.
Many of the outsourcing facilities wont design implant models! And I don't blame them, it is a pain in the 'you know where'... These libraries are huge and are updated constantly... Is it only Exocad specific, or in general?We've been using Argen design services to design and print our implant models. Today, we were informed that Argen is no longer supporting stl files from Exocad to do this service. We are looking for recommendations for designing and printing our implant models.
Thanks for the forewarning.....Argen![]()
Argen told me that they are no longer accepting Exocad model files to desing, just 3Shape files now.Many of the outsourcing facilities wont design implant models! And I don't blame them, it is a pain in the 'you know where'... These libraries are huge and are updated constantly... Is it only Exocad specific, or in general?
We use Argen for our Implant models, after Straumann started to have issues with their portal and files disappeared, after we sent them out... With that said, there is no consistency in printed implant models. On some the analogs fit fine, and on others, the analogs are loose. Very frustrating.
But, we finally took the plunge and invested in a printer. But that also means, I can't blame anyone, anymore...![]()
Hi, I work for Imagine and I'd like to present our services as an alternative. Imagine has long been renowned for the ability to succeed with cases that other labs and milling centers simply will not touch. With nearly a decade of experience producing everything from titanium hybrid bars, overdenture bars, and hybrid single or multi-unit prosthetics, to everyday crown-and-bridge restoration - we’re ready to partner with your lab to bolster your capabilities and expand what’s possible. https://www.imagineusa.com/So I reccently have been having jobs cancelled by Argen for model printing. 9 times out of 10 when I call the techs can't really pinpoint why. As you can imagine, I'm getting behind on my work. Anyone been having problems with model printing cases being accepted? The main reason they come up with is probably an EXOCAD issue...
Also, I'd love to hear recommendations of other printing companies to use.
Thanks humans!
4 months left. enjoy while you can.7 years of good luck.
I'm on a roll.
Ya I don’t do that anymore.I double check contacts and occlusion.
I print a separate die to thin out the zirconia margin.
Contacts are the only challenge really. If you can contour the embrassures directly under the contact properly the crown will drop in. I set to zero and let the glaze snug things up. The 50 microns printer is sufficient enough to mark with foil.I'm still there, where I would want to confirm things on a die and printed model. After all these years, it would be hard for me to give that up...
View attachment 41444