I come here to try and learn new information, however I find myself on some sort of scienctific fantasy land? The video was informative yet he scanned an already made object not something abstract to begin with! As if we have not run into cases that want a "facelift " at the same time! bulk out the wax need more support! Now the nuts and bolts of it:
1-cost factor-start-up cost 1,000,000$ on a technique safely guarded! one one company doing such as stated in video.
2- convince every Dr to spend another 100,000$ on scanning devises
3- can the product be repaired in 24 hrs or less? relined overnight?
4- wear ablility ?
5- easly adjusted for fit upon insertion?
6- one of many question I have for the technology?
Zcorp is but one of many companies working in additive technologies(my response to numbered point 1)...and frankly their product offerings are some of the most primitive in terms of results. The video was frankly a poor example of the capabilities of the current state of the technology.
[my response to the numbered lists preface] A more relevant example would be to examine the
workflow of Invisilign.
Using the same technology, and workflow....it is not hard to imagine the applicability to our field with minor adjustment....
1. Doctor takes impressions (richer clinics intraoral scan)
[point 2] 2. Impressions are digitized (in dental clinic, in your lab, or in a regional scanning center in the case of a megacorp lab dominating the field)
[point 2] 3. a lab tech or possibly a data center not unlike theirs in Costa Rica performs setup.
[my response to the prefaces implication that customization is somehow ellusive] This is where a slight departure from invisilign proceedure would come in...rather then a series of a dozen or more models representing an entire treatment plan being fabricated....
4. Using a multiple material 3d printer both teeth and baseplate are printed. Objet already produces printers that are capable of this, as has been mentioned in this thread, Their only holdup is jumping through regulatory loops in material approval.
Alternatively....a more drawn out fabrication proceedure using additive manufacturing systems constrained by single material per build technologies would flow more like this....
4a. Either a tooth shade SLA resin is used to fabricate the arch(s)....or a sacrificial toothform is printed and injected as seen in PressOn
s video
4b. An acrylic compatable nonbonding resin is SLA fabricated to form a thin mold shell that will accept the formed tooth arch and allow baseplate resin injection
4c. a simular "shell" is formed to provide the tissue side detail.
4d. a denture is injected in a process not unlike todays dentures....repairable relinable etc etc
Points 3-5 are a simple issue of material selection. Point 6 is negligible as its merely a placeholder to continue to find issues of contention Meanwhile--I am going back to my old habit of looking at pretty woman-NAKED! and stop waisting my time reading this stuff .
Cant see any way this discussion can be seen as any more of a waste then the discussion of using 3dPrinters in C&B would have been a few years ago....additive manufacturing technologies are just a turn of the clocks hands from the removable field as well.
P.S. What are you all going to do when science does away with tooth lose or cavities only a few years away!
While I hope watching invisilgns video makes the potential reality of digitally fabricated dentures more believable...and the possibility for a mass produced custom tailored product by a major corporation a bit more concerning....in regards to...
P.S. What are you all going to do when science does away with tooth lose or cavities only a few years away!
Allow me to be repetitive....
Even if/when perfected, such options will be at the top echelon of treatment plans. The solution for the wealthy few. It will never be the treatment of the masses. Removables will never go away. The largest market sector for tooth replacement will always be those who cannot or can barely afford dental services.
