N
NDA
Member
Full Member
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
We'd like input from those of you who design crowns & bridges using Planmeca's Emerald Scanner stl's files. Although, we've used iTero scan files for years with no fit problems... bridges & implant crowns that we make for our Dr using Emerald stl files most often require considerable adjustments or remakes. Our experienced CDT designs the bridges for both the iTero & Emerald cases... & the problem only occurs with the Emerald cases. We've tried on both of our design systems: 3shape & ZirkonZahn Exocad. & we still have the fit problems. We order models from CMC. For the vast majority of these cases, the bridges & crowns we design & mill in our office fit the models with only minor adjustments in the lab. Yet when our 'Emerald' Dr seats these cases, it's 50-50 whether the prosthetic will need major adjustments-- or re-makes. When Dr sends the physical impression for remake, we notice that its margin is different from original digital files they have sent us. This makes us think it's the scanning problem; however, Dr tells us that they have no fit problem with another dental lab they send the cases to. So we are confused what actually is the problem. We used both DDX & Drop Box to transmit the files in case there might be problems while transferring data (although highly doubted),but fit problem persists. We've seen online comparisons of: Cerec Omnicam, 3Shape Trios & Planmeca's Emerald-- which show that the Emerald is only 3 stars in 'Ease of Use' vs 5 stars (Cerec) & 4 stars (Trios). In the same comparison the Emerald has the largest scanning head. Could those 2 factors contribute to a less accurate scan?