inLab CAM doesn't like one of two mega-bridges

HonestAbe

HonestAbe

Member
Full Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
EDIT: Just putting the solution at the top, as suggested by CoolHandLuke the puck was simply not compatible for some reason. It was too damn big. Yes the restoration fit but something about the mill thought it couldn't reach where it needed to I guess. Luckily a 22mm puck it was happy with, so we'll return the 25mm puck in the other material.

So I'm trying to figure out for the bosses and doc why the Sirona software is so bad (or maybe it's me!). With the MCXL mill I could tell it to just go ahead and try, but the X5 won't let me move forward on this one. It's insanely tall. Long story short, Densply is stumped and kicked it over to Sirona and we're waiting to hear back from them. I can't seem to get information on what the heck this error actually means so I can tweak the design and try and make it acceptable. I tried spinning it around at various angles and was able to get it to give me more errors but not less. Obviously the designer is hoping to not have to start from scratch so I'm just taking a stab at getting it moving.

I thought the problem was the small areas of undercut between each unit so I did a reduction on the whole thing to test if that might be what was going on. It didn't like that one either and provided the same reason as being "out of reach". I also tried taking that framework, removing the screw channels, and got the same error. I tried exporting the restoration as an stl, taking it into meshmixer and analyzing it for errors like holes or other tiny things I might not have seen, nothing.

I know this is a longshot but I hate just waiting for Sirona so I figured I'd toss it out in case anyone wanted a laugh or had any more things to try.
 

Attachments

  • error 1.png
    error 1.png
    478.8 KB · Views: 18
  • error 2.png
    error 2.png
    448.8 KB · Views: 17
  • error 3 cutback same error.png
    error 3 cutback same error.png
    481.2 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
lcmlabforum

lcmlabforum

Well-Known Member
Full Member
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
160
Dumb question but could it be just because of puck size limits?
LCM
 
HonestAbe

HonestAbe

Member
Full Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
It visibly fits with space on top and bottom in the default position it presents to me, and when I tweak it and spin it around to try and make it happy I'm checking to make sure there's no areas sticking outside the puck.
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

Idiot
Full Member
Messages
9,548
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,411
probably can't reach all the way through the screw channels to mill.
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

Idiot
Full Member
Messages
9,548
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,411
then its simply not compatible with the size of disk you are throwing at it.
 
G

grantoz

Well-Known Member
Full Member
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
366
it can also be the angle you have to tilt it to get it in the puck when milling these type of bridges you need to reduce the tilt as much as possible
 
HonestAbe

HonestAbe

Member
Full Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
then its simply not compatible with the size of disk you are throwing at it.
So I made up a couple of fake pucks to test smaller sizes. It was soooo close but didn't quite fit in a 20mm (could change design and make it work maybe). It did fit in a 22mm puck and it was okay to proceed. Only problem is the cercon material we're using only comes in 14/16/18/25. Looks like zirlux transitions has a 22m puck though and we like that material so we're gonna try that. Appreciate the advice.
 
M

mmbh

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
8
I have this sirona system as well as my main exocad stuff. FYI Sirona techs won't be of much help. Most likely it has to do with the mill and burs not being able to mill or reach the angle internally given the height of the bridge. Its more of a limitation of the mill. The software knows the limitations of the mill. Had this issue a few times several years ago. If you have the stl file export license, just have someone else mill it on a more capable system.
 
HonestAbe

HonestAbe

Member
Full Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
It's remarkable, but unsurprising that Sirona and Densply aren't able to look at the error (or have it explained in their documentation) and have real troubleshooting advice beyond "wiggle it around and pray". Like 5 minutes here was worth more than all the time put into being on hold, waiting for callbacks, uploading huge files over the internet, etc etc.

I get the feeling that they're just being as greedy as possible and milking the tech for all they can before they get completely replaced by more open platform stuff that functions better.
 
M

mmbh

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
8
It's remarkable, but unsurprising that Sirona and Densply aren't able to look at the error (or have it explained in their documentation) and have real troubleshooting advice beyond "wiggle it around and pray". Like 5 minutes here was worth more than all the time put into being on hold, waiting for callbacks, uploading huge files over the internet, etc etc.

I get the feeling that they're just being as greedy as possible and milking the tech for all they can before they get completely replaced by more open platform stuff that functions better.
Yeah, its unfortunate but it is what it is. Now I just import them directly into my exocad system from Sirona's seperate connect case platform. My MCX5 and inlab just sits there as my backup.
 
HonestAbe

HonestAbe

Member
Full Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
Yeah, its unfortunate but it is what it is. Now I just import them directly into my exocad system from Sirona's seperate connect case platform. My MCX5 and inlab just sits there as my backup.
How different is exocad? Like if I consider myself highly proficient with inLab software (I don't have the anatomy knowledge of a very experienced tech but I can use the tools very well),would I have difficulty adjusting to exocad? I've always been curious about other software but haven't had the chance to use it.
 
M

mmbh

Active Member
Full Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
8
It is a different beast. Inlab's strength lies in single tooth restorations (short span bridges as well) with basic anatomy. It does a pretty good job at that, it was written with the doctor in mind that didn't have time to fiddle with it too much. Exocad is going to take some time to learn because there are so many available tools to use. The key is to keep it simple, but the tools are there if you need them. I've heard 3shape is a little easier to learn the basic design tools to crank out crowns but I don't have any first hand knowledge of that. Not sure if its worth it to get another design software if you are not upgrading your mill and cam as well. As far as importing stl files into inlab cam and mill is kind of a pain.
We upgraded everything so it was more than worth it, but if you are only doing those large difficult bridges once and awhile, consider outsourcing those to be milled and do the smaller simpler stuff in house.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom