Exocad/ Dess Aurum

D

dima

Member
Full Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello Experts!
Having some problems with Aurum Titanium bases from Dess , I have never managed to get a perfect fit no matter how little cement space we choose, they are always too loose . I have even tried to scan the Ti base directly and still not good . What am I missing ? How to do it correctly because they are absolutely one of the smartest solutions out there.
Ps : we are working on Exocad and milling with ZirconZahn .
I do appreciate all your recommendation!
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Messages
11,304
Reaction score
2,510
Scan the ti base on the model. This gives you complete control of the spacer. If they are IO scan you are SOL.

The ti base files in the implant libraries are averages. Machined ti bases vary in dimensions from batch to batch this is a variable that you won't be able to control with any real predictability
 
Affinity

Affinity

Well-Known Member
Donator
Full Member
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1,062
So whats all this I hear about digital accuracy and microns and stuff.. I thought the game had changed... :rolleyes:
 
D

dima

Member
Full Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Scan the ti base on the model. This gives you complete control of the spacer. If they are IO scan you are SOL.

The ti base files in the implant libraries are averages. Machined ti bases vary in dimensions from batch to batch this is a variable that you won't be able to control with any real predictability
Thanks for answering 😊! I have already tried this actually, with the minimum possible cement space but the result was not good enough, still not accurate enough.
When I talked with them lately , I got the answer that it is because of our milling machine, but we don't have this issue when we use Straumnn original components .
One of my dentist tried to print one case with plastic, just to figure out what are the perfect parameters and the result was that not even one was good enough !!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200118_060534_981.jpg
    IMG_20200118_060534_981.jpg
    107.6 KB · Views: 34
cadfan

cadfan

Well-Known Member
Full Member
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
207
@ dima make negative spacer you are the master you have control over your digital slaves ;) printing is another slave but deppending on the printer harder to control
 
JMN

JMN

Christian Member
Full Member
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
1,884
@ dima make negative spacer you are the master you have control over your digital slaves ;) printing is another slave but deppending on the printer harder to control
You know you juset dared the robot uprising to get you, right?
And skynet to target the remains?

Oh, and don't anthropomorphize the machines, they don't like it.
 
D

dima

Member
Full Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
@ dima make negative spacer you are the master you have control over your digital slaves ;) printing is another slave but deppending on the printer harder to control
Hallelujah ! That's what I was waiting for , have been thinking about it but I am not such a master so would you please tell me how to do it !
I suppose it is possible when we scan the Ti base not when we use the scan body? Are there any differences between the implant systems ?
 
cadfan

cadfan

Well-Known Member
Full Member
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
207
The Lord is praised just go left not right with the gap controller and deppending on the max limits in your XML i think minus 0.5 mm is possible
gap is XYZ
top is Z only
XY is as the word says XY but this inkludes the margin too so the complete stump with no height limit ( this "opens" the margin) .The original thought behind is to control vs correct scan inacuracies, tool deflection, non compensated tool radius and a few other production problems . But as Lord of your mill your free to use it for whatever you want.

Total " gap " is xyz gap plus or minus xy and z exept in the area between your prep and the start line

Each manufactuerer uses his own values normal is add 30 micron gap on original parts to glue, but deppending on the accuracy during production it could be different in real life. In other words if they produce the glue base with max accuracy which could be under plus minus 5 micron and you produce your parts with the same precision the real gap is 20-40 micron
 

Attachments

  • gap.png
    gap.png
    167.2 KB · Views: 33
DESS-USA

DESS-USA

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
222
Reaction score
63
Hi Dima:
I am with DESS USA and handle all the technical issues. With ZZ or any system you have to adjust your CAM strategy if the end result is too tight or too loose. Also you should have a seperate milling strategy for the different materials that you use since the burs work differently based on the material. We have ran into situations where they will deflect on PMMA and other materials. This is all modifiable in the CAM. I would contact me directly at [email protected] and can assist you further.
 
DESS-USA

DESS-USA

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
222
Reaction score
63
Scan the ti base on the model. This gives you complete control of the spacer. If they are IO scan you are SOL.

The ti base files in the implant libraries are averages. Machined ti bases vary in dimensions from batch to batch this is a variable that you won't be able to control with any real predictability

I wanted to respond to this since this is incorrect information when it comes to the DESS products. We use several different metrology systems to measure the accuracy of the parts. Typically the accepted range is 3-5 microns from the original design of CAD drawings of the part. I have sent a link to a video showing the part inspections. This way we know that every part we make from that batch is consistent with the original specifications.

 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Messages
11,304
Reaction score
2,510
I wanted to respond to this since this is incorrect information when it comes to the DESS products. We use several different metrology systems to measure the accuracy of the parts. Typically the accepted range is 3-5 microns from the original design of CAD drawings of the part. I have sent a link to a video showing the part inspections. This way we know that every part we make from that batch is consistent with the original specifications.


They still don't fit without a bit of slop. There are uncontrollable variables limiting predictable exact fits on every Ti base whether Dess or any other companies system.
 
DESS-USA

DESS-USA

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
222
Reaction score
63
There is a predictable fit with our ti bases and there is a 45 micron gap when you use a scan body and choose a ti base. If you scan the ti base then there is no 45 micron gap. With systems such as ZZ since they did not test and validate our tibases to be used with their system since they want ZZ clients to buy from them then there ti bases. So "slop" occurs since now the ZZ user has to create their own CAM strategy/milling protocal for each material used and for each ti base they choose to use. We see more "slop" when it comes to milling pmma, peek, trilor, pekkton, etc when there is no specific strategy for this and we receive a call stating there is something wrong with our library file and 100% of the time it is fixed by having a specific cam strategy for that material with our ti base. There are lengthy discussions about this on FB Sum3D forum for example. We try to work with all vendors to ensure that they test our parts, develop milling strategies using our library and parts with the intention of reducing the "slop". Also because of our vertical wall design versus everyone else's tapered wall, which has significantly less bond retention even with taller chimney's, this is more challenging to mill, yet is overcome by developing a milling strategy for the DESS parts.
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Messages
11,304
Reaction score
2,510
I use your parts(and recommend them) Keith and I'm not sh¡ting on them , but the reality is different than CAD drawings and digital implant libraries.
 
DESS-USA

DESS-USA

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
222
Reaction score
63
Thanks for using the parts. Please send me examples that our parts are different CAD Drawings and digital implant libraries than the actual parts. You can email pictures to me at [email protected] since this should not be the case.
 
DAL Claxton

DAL Claxton

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Hello Dima! Depending on your milling system, you can also reimport the "rhino 3d" engineer created model of the implant part. With Millbox at least, you can have the software recognize the part, cut out a more accurate representation of the base, and even make tiny adjustments to "cement gap". Even with milling as accurate as it is, any small factors can change things and could affect fit. You could have burrs that were made slightly incorrect in size from what's listed in the strategy, shrinkage rate not 100% represented (overall shrink compared to x/y/z),mill calibration off, or even burrs with inconsistent shank lenghts causing some wobbling.

On the other side of things, implant companies can have a hard time with Exocad. Some of the key words used in 3Shape like "additional spacing" are entirely different in Exocad. Additional spacing creates an offset from the entire prep or object including the margin to compensate in some part for shrinkage (defaulted with most materials to .02) if you turn this up in your advanced parameters just as a test you can see even the margin is opened by this much and the minimal thickness visualization gets warped if it's too large.

A fun trick with Exocad though: if you still create the job as a screw retained manual positioning, and scan in the case, you can avoid the inaccuracies from your scanner and scan spray by getting an engineer software created STL of the TI base.

Go to Expert mode - Tools - Add/Remove Mesh - Import that STL file as a multidie scan - and line it up like a dab die / Multi Die scan.

Just make sure that TI base STL has a closed top, if there's a screw hole then Exocad will attempt to drop the prep down through it like a post and core.

Hope this helps!
- Josh
 
D

dima

Member
Full Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi Dima:
I am with DESS USA and handle all the technical issues. With ZZ or any system you have to adjust your CAM strategy if the end result is too tight or too loose. Also you should have a seperate milling strategy for the different materials that you use since the burs work differently based on the material. We have ran into situations where they will deflect on PMMA and other materials. This is all modifiable in the CAM. I would contact me directly at [email protected] and can assist you further.
Thanks for your response! Actually we are milling mostly Zr , only ones we tried PMMA and the fit was not accurate. The most annoying case we milled Zr for maybe 4 times with cement space down to 0,02 ( the minimum possiblity) with no good results.
And I m asking here just because I do like your products and believe that they can be the solution for many cases, then on top you have the most kind and professional man here in Sweden so we d love to keep working with him. I'll send you some STL files the next couple of days and see forward to find some solutions. 👍
 
D

dima

Member
Full Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello Dima! Depending on your milling system, you can also reimport the "rhino 3d" engineer created model of the implant part. With Millbox at least, you can have the software recognize the part, cut out a more accurate representation of the base, and even make tiny adjustments to "cement gap". Even with milling as accurate as it is, any small factors can change things and could affect fit. You could have burrs that were made slightly incorrect in size from what's listed in the strategy, shrinkage rate not 100% represented (overall shrink compared to x/y/z),mill calibration off, or even burrs with inconsistent shank lenghts causing some wobbling.

On the other side of things, implant companies can have a hard time with Exocad. Some of the key words used in 3Shape like "additional spacing" are entirely different in Exocad. Additional spacing creates an offset from the entire prep or object including the margin to compensate in some part for shrinkage (defaulted with most materials to .02) if you turn this up in your advanced parameters just as a test you can see even the margin is opened by this much and the minimal thickness visualization gets warped if it's too large.

A fun trick with Exocad though: if you still create the job as a screw retained manual positioning, and scan in the case, you can avoid the inaccuracies from your scanner and scan spray by getting an engineer software created STL of the TI base.

Go to Expert mode - Tools - Add/Remove Mesh - Import that STL file as a multidie scan - and line it up like a dab die / Multi Die scan.

Just make sure that TI base STL has a closed top, if there's a screw hole then Exocad will attempt to drop the prep down through it like a post and core.

Hope this helps!
- Josh
Oh Josh! that is probably kind of higher level to get things done, I will absolutely give a try next Saturday !
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Messages
11,304
Reaction score
2,510
with cement space down to 0,02 ( the minimum possiblity)
Go into work parameter tool and change those values to a lower minimum setting. Of course make a copy of the original settings first, for your own safety and the sake of everyone else.
C:/exocad/DentalDB/bin/workparameters.exe
 
Top Bottom