custom anatomy kits

[kakmadafaka]

hey All
I have been thinking about custom anatomy kits,
obviously some people are making some money out of this, so I was wondering what are the real benefits of custom kits? have you Guys&Gals had experience creating them with the different platforms available? why would one invest good money to buy custom kits if the default kits supplied with all platforms can cover almost all that is needed? has anyone experience with the "CAP" kit for 3shape? how is it better than the "normal" kits?
and that is all......for now

 

[CoolHandLuke]

the default anatomy stuff on most platforms is pretty terrible. but its all subjective.

ive come to learn that even if the anatomy coming out of the design was perfect in every way it would still get ground down and re-added by some jackass porcelain tech or critiqued by someone further down the line as philosophically wrong. or worse, be the wrong shade.

theres no such thing as normal anatomy or good anatomy. any old junk will actually do.

 

[kakmadafaka]

can I understand from your words that the main function is an aesthetic one? everyone is a critic in the world of arts

 

[CoolHandLuke]

no its just me being cynical.

nobody cares about posterior anatomy so long as it functions, even fewer care about making full contour anteriors. so it doesnt really matter.

 

[JKraver]

Good anatomy is functional anatomy *best old man voice*

 

[kakmadafaka]

so for anteriors one would idealy make a custom kit to fit with the existing time worn teeth of the patient, and for posteriors just a general kit as long as it function as it should inside the poor bastards mouth
that about right?

Also obviously everyone has his favorite platform and all but in which would you choose to make a kit?
objectively speaking it is rather obvious that none of the platforms openly encourages the end user making his own kits. but which has the better tools to do so anyways?
(let us ignore the money issue here for a second. all three companies will do their best to bleed us to death, and the stronger and bigger one is, so will the price be better)

 

[CoolHandLuke]

3shape has the library scanning software built right into the system, so if you want to create a custom anatomy for any or all teeth you can do this at any time.

they don't make it hard and have no problems with users making their own.

then again i'm jaded and have probably more experience than most users.

 

[zero_zero]

so for anteriors one would idealy make a custom kit to fit with the existing time worn teeth of the patient, and for posteriors just a general kit as long as it function as it should inside the poor bastards mouth
that about right?

Also obviously everyone has his favorite platform and all but in which would you choose to make a kit?
objectively speaking it is rather obvious that none of the platforms openly encourages the end user making his own kits. but which has the better tools to do so anyways?
(let us ignore the money issue here for a second. all three companies will do their best to bleed us to death, and the stronger and bigger one is, so will the price be better)

Well, I got pretty much every tooth lib out there in STL ready to to use, still only a very small percent makes it into production on a daily basis...go figure...

 

[JohnWilson]

Its very similar to how we do it in analog. We have a few different shapes in our minds eye that we feel "Fit" the case or we are comfortable with. The truly talented techs in analog have a very wide design library in their minds eye. These are the true greats that show their work repeatably and you see different line angles and heights of contour and incisal definition.

These guys/gals are the truly different then masses. The VAST majority of CAD techs enjoy a few different shapes that they know well (again the minds eye) and rarely use anything else.

This is why CAD gets a bad rap for being a "cookie cutter" restoration. The true challenge with CAD is not to have a point and click library, it is nice when they are positioned correctly to save initial proposals its what you do with it after that is what will set you apart from the masses.

Contour/Contacts and occlusion can be so different from case to case and having the knowledge and vision to do something "different" will never be adapted to a specific "Golden bullet" library

Just my thoughts.

 

[kakmadafaka]

Well, I got pretty much every tooth lib out there in STL ready to to use, still only a very small percent makes it into production on a daily basis...go figure...

But you need to converts the .stls to the native file format before using them I think, or can you just "plug&play" editing the .stls as a part of the normal workflow? as far as i unerstood, the native file format of the platforms (.waflib, .eos, .dcm) are just a bunch of .stls with external instructions as to how the entire tooth anatomie should react to changes in the geometry.

 

[kakmadafaka]

Its very similar to how we do it in analog. We have a few different shapes in our minds eye that we feel "Fit" the case or we are comfortable with. The truly talented techs in analog have a very wide design library in their minds eye. These are the true greats that show their work repeatably and you see different line angles and heights of contour and incisal definition.

These guys/gals are the truly different then masses. The VAST majority of CAD techs enjoy a few different shapes that they know well (again the minds eye) and rarely use anything else.

This is why CAD gets a bad rap for being a "cookie cutter" restoration. The true challenge with CAD is not to have a point and click library, it is nice when they are positioned correctly to save initial proposals its what you do with it after that is what will set you apart from the masses.

Contour/Contacts and occlusion can be so different from case to case and having the knowledge and vision to do something "different" will never be adapted to a specific "Golden bullet" library

Just my thoughts.

hihi the mind's eye. what do you mean by "cookie cutter"? and can I understand that in your opinion the ideal workflow would be to have a teeth set that "resembles" the teeth you want, and would in any case be further adapted inside the

 

[kakmadafaka]

sorry the thing got posted unfinished by mistake.
so, can I understand that in your opinion the ideal workflow would be to have a teeth set that "resembles" the teeth you want, and would in any case be further adapted inside the the cad engine by the techies ?

 

[kakmadafaka]

3shape has the library scanning software built right into the system, so if you want to create a custom anatomy for any or all teeth you can do this at any time.

they don't make it hard and have no problems with users making their own.

then again i'm jaded and have probably more experience than most users.

Friar Bellows: Perhaps a motto for our enterprise? "Blessed are the meek..."
[The rest grumble in disagreement.]
Friar Bellows: "... for they shall be slaughtered!"
[The rest cheer and rush for the door.]
Edmund: But the plan! You've forgotten the plan!
Sir Wilfred Death: I thought that was the plan!
Sean, the Irish Bastard: Let's get those meek bastards now!

Could You please share a workflow example with the meek?

 

[CoolHandLuke]

ha!

That's right! Banished!

i've done so on a few occasions before, i'll dig up an old post...

http://dentallabnetwork.com/forums/threads/3shape-users.10801/page-10#post-83010

edit:man i used to be some kinda smart.

 

[kakmadafaka]

ha!

That's right! Banished!

i've done so on a few occasions before, i'll dig up an old post...

http://dentallabnetwork.com/forums/threads/3shape-users.10801/page-10#post-83010

cool thank you very much

 

[kakmadafaka]

btw approximately how long would it take you to create a custom kit from a prepared wax-up?
From the User manual you posted it would seem to be some half a days work give or take, barring scan failures and clueless workers

 

[CoolHandLuke]

the last time i did one was before CAP released the JKim library and that was an all-day event that this old experienced goat took several tries to get right.

 

[kakmadafaka]

the last time i did one was before CAP released the JKim library and that was an all-day event that this old experienced goat took several tries to get right.

do you mean this one:
http://cap-us.com/products/cap-anatomical-library-for-3shape/?postTabs=0 ?
is the CAP lib so good? I saw what they offer, but since I don't work with 3shape, I couldn't understand why the CAP lib is better for cad users than a normal lib like they claim. could you share an example?

 

[CoolHandLuke]

yep that's the one.

personally i find it easier to get good results with this library mostly when you are doing several units at once. if you use it for singles, your crowns will stick out like a sore thumb. if your goal is to mask the fact that you have made a crown at all, this is not the library for you.