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
Zirconium
Sand blasting zirconium affects the cte??!!!
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="Jason D" data-source="post: 294211" data-attributes="member: 12217"><p>Agreed, there are basic rules about zirconia, and yes lots of labs had issues at the beginning because they were used to how “easy” fusing glass to gold was (conductivity and sintering behaviors made it easy if frames were designed properly and cte matched.)</p><p></p><p>All I see is ivoclar trying (again) to justify emax in a world that has moved on, with studies that measure things that have no real bearing on the “real world” challenges limitations and results.</p><p></p><p>Does porcelain chip or deliminate on zirconia? Sure thing, just like it did on pfms and just like it does on layered emax.</p><p></p><p>Good design, proper firing parameters and calibrated ovens, not abusing materials and understanding occlusion means the case succeeds.</p><p></p><p>It’s a little ironic that the company that made empress 2 and Targis vectris, two of the twitchiest, most technique sensitive and least successful materials ever, wants to throw stones about technique sensitivity at the most commonly requested material out there.</p><p>Now that I think about it, wasn’t it too narrow of a thermal coefficient match on empress two that caused the entire product line to be recalled and reformulated?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jason D, post: 294211, member: 12217"] Agreed, there are basic rules about zirconia, and yes lots of labs had issues at the beginning because they were used to how “easy” fusing glass to gold was (conductivity and sintering behaviors made it easy if frames were designed properly and cte matched.) All I see is ivoclar trying (again) to justify emax in a world that has moved on, with studies that measure things that have no real bearing on the “real world” challenges limitations and results. Does porcelain chip or deliminate on zirconia? Sure thing, just like it did on pfms and just like it does on layered emax. Good design, proper firing parameters and calibrated ovens, not abusing materials and understanding occlusion means the case succeeds. It’s a little ironic that the company that made empress 2 and Targis vectris, two of the twitchiest, most technique sensitive and least successful materials ever, wants to throw stones about technique sensitivity at the most commonly requested material out there. Now that I think about it, wasn’t it too narrow of a thermal coefficient match on empress two that caused the entire product line to be recalled and reformulated? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Zirconium
Sand blasting zirconium affects the cte??!!!
Top
Bottom