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
Porcelain
cracking porcelain on long span bridge
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="labguy5381" data-source="post: 199409" data-attributes="member: 10040"><p>I appreciate all of the great replies. I agree that it is probably a cooling issue. The metal and porcelain are matched from the same manufacturer. Contamination is a possible issue, but in my experience if the metal is contaminated, it shows up visually under the microscope in some funky(dental term) way. You are correct that there is not a lot of reduction on the abutments, creating some of the issue. Grantoz...yes we have fired ZI porcelain before too, but not on this one. </p><p></p><p>In response to the porcelain under the pontics, there is an exposed implant and cap in the middle of that span that we decided to rest metal on for support. Would you have done this? This may be the reason for your comment about the metal close to the tissue. The current metal design definitely has a metal island underneath touching the implant cap.</p><p></p><p>What I am considering is an old style metal band on the lingual to stiffen the arch and allow for more even cooling. What do you think? While I hate changing more than one variable when there is a problem, we will also use new metal and crucible in recast.</p><p></p><p>Bob...would you have done this case in Zirconia? Our CAD guy was worried about those joints at the abutments because of the limited space.</p><p></p><p>Advice?</p><p></p><p>Thanks,</p><p></p><p>Jim</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="labguy5381, post: 199409, member: 10040"] I appreciate all of the great replies. I agree that it is probably a cooling issue. The metal and porcelain are matched from the same manufacturer. Contamination is a possible issue, but in my experience if the metal is contaminated, it shows up visually under the microscope in some funky(dental term) way. You are correct that there is not a lot of reduction on the abutments, creating some of the issue. Grantoz...yes we have fired ZI porcelain before too, but not on this one. In response to the porcelain under the pontics, there is an exposed implant and cap in the middle of that span that we decided to rest metal on for support. Would you have done this? This may be the reason for your comment about the metal close to the tissue. The current metal design definitely has a metal island underneath touching the implant cap. What I am considering is an old style metal band on the lingual to stiffen the arch and allow for more even cooling. What do you think? While I hate changing more than one variable when there is a problem, we will also use new metal and crucible in recast. Bob...would you have done this case in Zirconia? Our CAD guy was worried about those joints at the abutments because of the limited space. Advice? Thanks, Jim [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Porcelain
cracking porcelain on long span bridge
Top
Bottom