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
Rosen Screw Library
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="npdynamite" data-source="post: 354118" data-attributes="member: 11802"><p>Well, in the situation that started the post, I received a case design where the doctor wanted direct to MUA using a Rosin screw so I was trying to accommodate. That said, I don't know all the reasons but one is to reduce the number of connections while also eliminating cement so that reduces a potential failure. Less connection points also means smoother emergence profile that is easier to keep clean. From my understanding and experience it is also easier to mill an MUA perfectly than to get a Ti base to fit with zero side to side movement. Because of this it still makes sense to cement on a verified cast, whereas with direct to MUA, if you are using accurate enough scan data (so utilizing more than just an intraoral scanner) you can mill directly from scan data and not require a verified cast. Of course, whether any individuals lab and milling equipment is up to the task of milling these accurately enough is another question. Also the FDA approval side is another question that I know is hashed out on here somewhere.</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, I can't pretend to have the knowledge to say which is better in the long run. I like the concept of the Rosin screw and I definitely think it is a bigger deal than just saving money on Ti bases. But I don't know if there are any negative repercussions for long term restorations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="npdynamite, post: 354118, member: 11802"] Well, in the situation that started the post, I received a case design where the doctor wanted direct to MUA using a Rosin screw so I was trying to accommodate. That said, I don't know all the reasons but one is to reduce the number of connections while also eliminating cement so that reduces a potential failure. Less connection points also means smoother emergence profile that is easier to keep clean. From my understanding and experience it is also easier to mill an MUA perfectly than to get a Ti base to fit with zero side to side movement. Because of this it still makes sense to cement on a verified cast, whereas with direct to MUA, if you are using accurate enough scan data (so utilizing more than just an intraoral scanner) you can mill directly from scan data and not require a verified cast. Of course, whether any individuals lab and milling equipment is up to the task of milling these accurately enough is another question. Also the FDA approval side is another question that I know is hashed out on here somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't pretend to have the knowledge to say which is better in the long run. I like the concept of the Rosin screw and I definitely think it is a bigger deal than just saving money on Ti bases. But I don't know if there are any negative repercussions for long term restorations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Rosen Screw Library
Top
Bottom