Burs for occlusal grooves

[NathanNever]

Hello everyone. I'm new at this forum, it is indeed my first forum. I do not speak English very well, but at least I try. I launched the adventure e.max and I'm doing some tests. I bought a EP3000 and I hope I made ​​the purchase right, even if he or Zubler DEKEMA would be a good choice. but is e.max Ivoclar and thought it was the best thing to having the system fully. Now I have a case of 33 and 43 individual color D3 (D3 even if the value is too high, but the key is correct.) The representative advised me LT A2 and then turn the color with the shade and the incisal layering. is a good solution or should I buy a new pack of ingots? and if so what? the colors that I'm sure I will come in the future A3.5 A2 A3 D3 except in rare cases. One last question: but for finishing the occlusal grooves e.max which bur should I use? pfm use with a 33 1/2 FC, ​​I have a midwest turbine without cooling. You are all fantastic and only attending the forum I learned a lot from you all.
Gian

 

[CatamountRob]

Welcome Nathan,
Where are you from? Your English is just fine.
If you are asking about the occlusal anatomy on monolithic e.max, you wax it the way you want it, rather than carving it later. If you are asking about layered e.max, build the anatomy with your brush during build-up.

 

[subrisi]

I do not like LT Ingots for monolithic posteriors. They look too dead for me. If I have to use LT's , I cut back and layer enamel over it. I prefer HT and go up to 3 shades lighter. depending on the Stump and thickness of the emax.
Do not use a FG burr on your anatomy when you do not ave a water spray on your turbine. You have to carve it in wax. I use a zr6801FG010 from Komet. This is a tiny ball shaped diamond for ZI to remove bubbles on the occlusal surface or inside the crownif I did a bad job investing. But I also only use it with water. This burr does the job like grinding butter and get's you into the smallest spaces. But again: High speed on Emax ONLY with water.

# 33 and 43, I assume these are European numbers?? That would make them canines?? Yes I would do them with LT, cut back and layered. Do you get stump shades? I wouldn't use an A2 I would use a D2. The value is better. If the stump is light I would even go with a D3 if there is little room. I try to not apply stain heavily in the Anterior area. To me it looks too 2 dimensional. In doubt, compare your shade tab to the individual shade tabs of the emax materials and compare it to the incisal half of your vita shade tab. You can always stain darker but not so easy lighter.

 

[NathanNever]

I'm from Italy. The crowns of two lower canines. Unfortunately I do not have the scale ND, he is yet to come. However, the thickness is about 1mm neck, about 2 mm incisal to the maximum. The color is almost off the scale because the D3 is clear but it is what comes closest. He did not transparent incisal and D2 was too icy. For what it can serve the stump is not clear. Thanks for the replies so quick and accurate.
Gian

 

[charles007]

Welcome Gian to DLN,, and good to see you getting into emax.. If you spend as much of your free time reading threads on emax, you will have years of emax experience When you said fg, your meant diamonds right... carbides are a no no....

 

[NathanNever]

Charles007. tungsten carbide inverted cone. From what I read in a thread the carbide is not recommended, even if in a video on e.max I've seen it done. I would use exclusively for small bubbles in a positive and limited finishes.
Gian

 

[charles007]

Carbides can easily cause checks,,, may see now, after glazing, or appear later.. I use a diamond inverted cone on occlusals and pointed diamonds the rare times I get small noduals... talking monolithic emax ! I use zirconia if I want to layer posterior crowns. Why use a weaker frame if you want to layer like a pfm
Charles

 

[NathanNever]

Because I don't like zirconia. In my opinion a good pfm is better than zirconia. E.max I think is a good choice for anteriors and bicuspids with cutback. But I have no experiences with it.

 

[subrisi]

I use zirconia if I want to layer posterior crowns. Why use a weaker frame if you want to layer like a pfm
Charles

Why would you use a weaker porcelain?
The bonding porcelain over zirconia is much weaker than a PFM. Who cares about the strong frame when the build up is broken off?

 

[charles007]

Why would you use a weaker porcelain?
The bonding porcelain over zirconia is much weaker than a PFM. Who cares about the strong frame when the build up is broken off?

I didn't say anything about a weaker porcelain,, I was talking about emax frame being weaker than a zirconia frame.. Must say many of the zirconia porcelains are stronger than the average pfm porcelain.. aprox 125-130 MPa compared to 75 -90 MPa average among many pfm porcelains.. Don't consider these higher numbers worth talking about.. I also use emax monolithic on Bi's and molars, cutback only on anteriors.. I'm not about to use emax layered/cutbacks on posteriors or bridges.. rather be safe than sorry..
"The bonding over zirconia is much weaker than pfms"... Not true,,,,,,New studies are showing equal if not better..Having said that, not all labs are equal in the bond of pfms or labs using zirconia and not using the new techniques in firing and cooling of layered porcelain zirconia..
Don't want to hijack this thread.. another argument for another day..

 

[subrisi]

Must say many of the zirconia porcelains are stronger than the average pfm porcelain. aprox 125-130 MPa compared to 75 -90 MPa average among many pfm porcelains.. QUOTE]

I would be interested wich porcelain claims to be that strong???? Please put a name to the product. I have not heard of such Zirconia layering porcelain.

 

[charles007]

Must say many of the zirconia porcelains are stronger than the average pfm porcelain. aprox 125-130 MPa compared to 75 -90 MPa average among many pfm porcelains.. QUOTE]

I would be interested wich porcelain claims to be that strong???? Please put a name to the product. I have not heard of such Zirconia layering porcelain.

These are comimg from my memory, so don't hold me to the fire on the numbers being exact, I'm sure there close..
"The latest news, higher firing zir procelain according to Dr.McLaren have less problems in chipping etc.. in his zir study" ..
Zirconia porcelains listed below: some are high firing !
Emax ceram 90 MPa
GC Initial Zir 80 MPa
Noritake 80-90 MPa rated very high for not chipping in studies, and in CRA study
Creation 75-90 MPa
Wielands 120 MPa
Shofu 120-130
VM9 100 MPa
Avante 125-130 MPa
Most pfm porcelains are in the 75-80 MPa range: Vita and Avante pfm 100-120 MPa .. and higher than most other pfm porcelains
My brain is spiking now ,,, can't remember any more porcelain #

 

[kennedy]

Burs

Do not use carbides and avoid high speed turbines if possible, especially non water spray.
An 012 inverted cone medium diamond is good for refining anatomy in e.max
Remember that you can't use very sharp anatomy as you would in a PFM due to the creation of cleavage points in the all ceramic