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
Dental-CAD
Exocad/ Dess Aurum
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="DESS-USA" data-source="post: 313809" data-attributes="member: 19445"><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DESS-USA, post: 313809, member: 19445"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Exocad/ Dess Aurum
Top
Bottom