Just because something exists, doesnt mean its better. Just because you own a mill doesnt mean you can mill this interface accurately. The abutment is the crown, dont fall for marketing. Cementing a crown on a $35 ti base is easy. Zirconia shouldnt go in an implant.. its like a coke bottle stuck in a pipe, the glass will eventually break if loaded.
If youve ever done one of the nobel pearl implants its the same, except they wont allow you to mill the interface. In fact most manufacturers dont just give away their interface geometry because labs dont have the CAM or mill to accurately mill the interface.
They do provide you with a special super precise strategy and an OG cad drawing of the interface so you don't have any mistakes when creating toolpaths from stl. Also you get a precise tool for checking if the tolerances are in the acceptable range.
I used to use zirconia abutments in the anterior for esthetic reasons. I never do now. It's not worth the fracture risk when you can get a Ti abutment and anodize it. The thought of restoring posteriors with a zirconia interface into the abutment isn't something I would want to put my name on right now. What's the benefit of this? Saving money on an abutment? Ti abutments allow for a narrower emergence profile coming out of the implant and then a natural emergence where the junction is with the crown. With zirconia, the abutment/crown has to be thicker under the tissue to maintain strength which also makes it harder for the dentist to deliver in some cases.
The last benefit I care about is saving money. I am not that kind of lab and only quality interests me. I see the benefit in reduced complexity, reduced inventory needed, which is basically nothing but labor implants and the three different screws for zriconia, metal and PMMA. Another benefit is deciding on the gingival height, angulation of the screw channel and anything else digitally all witin the design. There is also never a problem of the Ti-base being too high and the need to shorten it and then scan with scan spray and so on ...
I do agree with you on the emergence profile. Platform switching is a de-facto standard today and we'll have to see if the reduced thickness of soft tissue is a problem in such cases. That is probably also the reason why they prefer their tissue level implant which also has a scalloped neck. So the platform switching is kinda integrated in the implant itself.
no
those documents indicate TRI-Matrix can be sold in the states as a dental implant, and that TRI Dental has the authorization to manufacture
any lab manufacturing implant-level components needs their own 510k clearance except in the case of non engaging interfaces or non protected geometries (such as multiunits) this is why you mostly don't see premills come in the non-engaging variety. you only need premills cause you arent allowed to mill the interface since 2015.
so if you know anyone making tri matrix stuff or other interface-level milling or printing you can report them if you can prove they don't have their own 510k.
btw you need that for each implant you want to mill.
I never knew that FDA also regulates milling of custom abutments or more specifically their interfaces. So is the 510k clearance given out if you apply and have the tools and knowledge necessary or do you also have to pay? I too am skeptical that is why I am asking. In the past there was nothing but trouble with zirconia-titanium interfaces but those all really tried to be backward compatible with their already existing line and none were designed from ground up.
How deep does the crown engage in to the implant? What is the screw made of and what is the torque for the screw?
I don't have the exact measurements I would have to say about 2 mm. I have no idea that the materials of the screw are. They have a couple of different ones depending on the material of restoration being used. The torque of the screw is 35 Ncm.
