Biomet 3i and 3M ESPE Announce New Collaboration

[BobCDT]

3i & 3M create work flow for dentist to take encode impressions with the True Def IOS. Just wondering where the lab is in this work flow. Looks like direct to dentist to me by two more big players.
You can read the full release here:
http://www.dentalproductsreport.com/lab/article/biomet-3i-and-3m-espe-announce-new-collaboration
your thoughts?


“We are pleased to offer the broadest range of digital solutions, which will lead to esthetic outcomes for patients,” Bart Doedens, President of BIOMET 3i, says. “This new step forward in impression-making offers a win-win experience for clinicians, laboratories and patients.”

"This new collaboration is a very important step to digitize implant treatment, and we are happy to add BIOMET 3i as a new Trusted Connection with the 3M True Definition Scanner,” Dave Frezee, business director, 3M Digital Oral Care, 3M ESPE, says. “Dentists now have the option to use the 3M True Definition Scanner for the complete implant workflow."

 

[ParkwayDental]

Thank god we are in a big Nobel area. Seems like every company is cutting out the middle man. With only being 24 I'm scared, I need to take my butt back to school and get some sort of degree for the future.

 

[eyeloveteeth]

Thank god we are in a big Nobel area. Seems like every company is cutting out the middle man. With only being 24 I'm scared, I need to take my butt back to school and get some sort of degree for the future.

lol - i'm 26, I know what you mean.


Anyway, they've done this via iTero for awhile now - we have a handful of dentists who send us the file and we just push the order to belletek for the abutment and then back to the lab.

 

[PCDL]

I do tons of Encode work, both traditional and IOS. 3i still has the lab involved in the process, and we still make the restoration. Very similar to the iTero workflow. Personally, I like the workflow, as I can leverage my surgical relationships to drive the work to my lab, as opposed to having to acquire each GP individually.

 

[ceram1]

I have heard the workflow is very expensive and not as reliable as traditional methods. I personally do not have any experience but have heard of analog placement issues on 3i side of the workflow.

 

[SdLi25]

They are over priced. The dentist gets the lab bill and freaks out. Have had lots of trouble with the encode system. The last 4-5 in a row we have done have been returned from 3i with problems. The analog has been placed wrong, models come back all chipped up and with no explanation. The 3i reps tell the dr that it will save them money. Well they still have to pay for pretty much all the parts, plus the robot placement. More than half that we have done have had problems coming back from 3i.

 

[JohnWilson]

While I have done my fair share utilizing this technique in its analog state, I have not done one from an IOS scan. What do the models look like? Do they actually contour the model to minimic the healing abutment? I agree the robocast of analog models leaves me wanting more when I compare it to a traditional soft tissue model. While I have not had rotation of bad placement I have had over drilled casts that leave me guessing on the emergence of the crown.

I also feel the entire system was designed just because the general consensus that a fixture level impression was just to technique demanding for the average GP. Of course this is anything but the truth, if you can't figure out how to take a fixture level impression its time to throw in the towel.

 

[PCDL]

The model that comes back to you has a removable die that is based on the design of the final abutment. You receive the final abutment, and a working model to finish your work on. In the traditional stone cast model, you are relying on the digital scan of the case to determine your soft tissue contours, the same way you do when you scan your soft tissue models. I would assume that you, like me, receive most of your implant impressions using unmodified impression copings, and design your emergence profile based on tooth position, placement, etc... 3i is doing the same thing, just no soft tissue.

I am one of the beta labs for this process, starting in 2006/07, and it wasn't without its faults at that time, but it has been continually advanced and still has more coming up (New workflows are coming soon). The robot was re-engineered in 2009 or 2010 and that helped greatly, and the cyanoacrylate that was used was reformulated to reduce the setting time and increase uniformity in the setting process. Also a big improvement.

I too notice the occasional chipped model, or segmented tooth, and it usually due to the robot encroaching on the adjacent dentition, or sometimes perforating the model, due to angulation.

Price is an issue, and won't change due to the labor intensive process and investment that has been made. The GP saves $$ in respect to chair time /overhead costs, but its generally considered to be a wash. What I like is the relationship that is formed using this protocol. I have consistently added clients with this technology. Not to mention that the abutments are really top notch in quality and accuracy (in respect to split file work on our end).

 

[SdLi25]

We have not done any in the IOS either, sorry I should have clarified that. We have had adjacent teeth that were prepped next to the healing abutment on the traditional model that is sent to 3i. It has happened where the model comes back chipped, large chips. The margin of the adjacent tooth is 1/3 gone, and we didn't get a phone call or an explanation. Hopefully this digital partnership will help, because we have not had good success with this system at.

Agree with the fixture level impression. When discussing this system with a doc and explaining to them what the costs and turnaround times are, they don't think twice abut it and do it the traditional way.