If you are having difficult viewing this format,
Please click the below link to view as a web page.
[webversionurl]
|
OPT-In Clinical Updates for November, 2013
-
Announcing Dr. David Hornbrook, Contributing Author
-
A Complete Understanding of Zirconia C & B
-
Announcing Low Cost Lab Alternatives
-
Implant Restorative Updates: Abutments, Ti, Zr, Custom, Stock
-
OPT-In Laboratory Members Near You
by
Dean Mersky, DDS
|
Dr. David Hornbrook will be joining Clinical Updates, Beginning December, 2013.
Dr. Hornbrook will contribute with
Clinical Tips and Concepts.
|
Creating Excellence, Partnering in Growth
|
Who are We and Why are You Receiving This?
In October, 2012, Dr. Dean Mersky formed
A national cooperative of small dental laboratory owners
Dedicated to the growth and viability of Private Practice Dental Offices.
A part of our support is providing doctors with evidence-based
information about materials and techniques key to patient care.
Look for the Logo in Choosing your Laboratory Partner
|
How We Decide Which Materials and Manufacturer to Feature
Products and services we feature must have benefits supported by independent research and be offered by companies dedicated to education in best practices, or, provide services that support care at the highest levels.
|
Clearing the Mysteries and Myths
Zirconia in dentistry has a long history, even though it is only recently becoming a normal consideration for restorative dentistry. Its earliest uses include root canal posts since 1989, abutments since 1995, and all-ceramic posterior FPD's since 1998. (Coli P, Karlsson S. Fit of a new pressure-sintered zirconium dioxide coping. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:59-64). Its use became even more prevalent around 2005, but then was blunted by veneering failures from a lack of understanding. Previous problems were rectified by appropriately matching CTE and better management of the cooling cycle. Now, Zr is reasserting itself as the true viable restorative option it deserves to be.
Structure
Zirconia (Zr) is the 19th most plentiful mineral on earth. When in oxide form (photo, left), it is technologically a ceramic that is more resistant to bacterial adhesion than titanium (Ramesh, 2012). Zr exists in 3 phases, depending on temperature: cubic at 2370°C, tetragonal at 1170°C, and monoclinic, at termperatures below 1170°C. When Zr transforms from tetragonal to monoclinic, there is a simultaneous volume increase of 4-5 %, as reported by Heuer, et al, (J Am Ceram Soc 1986;69:1-4). Yttria is added to Zr to prevent the tetragonal to monoclinic phase change, and is then referred to as Y-TZP.
When a flaw or crack develops in Y-TZP, the area of the flaw becomes monoclinic, and undergoes an associated volume expansion. As reported by Evans, et al, (Acta Metallurgica. Volume 34, Issue 5, May 1986, Pages 761-800) this phase transformation, also called toughening, compresses the flaw, retards its growth, enhances fracture toughness, and significantly extends the reliability and lifetime of the Zr restoration. This has been the reason air abrading the intaglio of Zr restorations has been accepted, even though research indicates a slight decrease in flexural strength.
Veneered Zirconia Restorations
As reported by Ramesh, historical differences in coefficients of thermal expansion, firing shrinkage of ceramic, flaws on veneering, and poor wetting during veneering of the core are factors that can lead to later veneer problems. To minimize these influences, special ceramics and techniques have been developed. Today, there is greater confidence in the longevity of veneered Zr restorations. A two-part review by Pjetursson compared the survival rates of Zr and other all-ceramic restorations to that of porcelain fused to metal. The investigators found 5 year survival rates of all ceramic restorations to be 93.3%, whereas metal ceramic restorations were 95.6%. When comparing Zr-ceramic restorations with other all-ceramic systems, zirconia frameworks were found to be the most reliable. (Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CHF. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: single crowns. Clinical Oral Implant Research 2007;18:73-85); (Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CHF. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses. Clinical Oral Implant Research 2007;18:86-96) Zr Photo Courtesy of BEGO USA
Biocompatibility
Zr does not induce cytotoxicity in soft tissues, as evidenced by Catelas, et al (J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;41:600-607).
Clinical Use
Zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPD's) have a wider application than other all-ceramics because of their predictably high strength for implants and molars, including posterior FPDs. However, FPD pontic spans are manufacturer specific and should not be tested beyond recommended lengths. Larsson suggested a maximum limit of five units, total, for Zr FPD's: (All-ceramic two to five-unit implant-supported reconstructions. A randomized, prospective clinical trial. Swed Dent J 2006;30:45-53).
With respect to margin design, feather margins are possible but always lead to over contouring and provide the technician with a dilemma: Should they be thinned for tissue health, or, should they be left thicker to avoid margin failure, which can happen with any ceramic that is thinner than recommended. For example, even with the strength of Zr, an occlusal that is too thin, as in the photo at left, is at risk of failure. Consequently, Witowski suggested chamfer or rounded shoulder margins with at least 1.5 mm incisal and occlusal thickness, and 1 mm axial reduction, with 4 to 6° taper: (CAD/CAM in dental technology. Quintessence Dent Tech 2005;28:169-184). Marginal overhang is an aspect of preparation design that is often overlooked. Rustum reported in 2010 that the shoulder preparation design was far better than the chamfer design with respect to horizontal overhang: http://www.thejpd.org/article/S0022-3913%2810%2960128-X/abstract.
Zr is now a popular material for full contour applications (FCZ), also due to its strength, biocompatibility, and reasonable esthetics. Testing for appropriate occlusal thickness, Jang reported in 2013, that 1 mm occlusal thickness provided twice the strength of .5 mm.
Also of importance is the amount of wear FCZ causes against opposing enamel. Januvula reported (January issue of JPD, 2013) that “Surface roughness ranked in order of least rough to roughest was: polished zirconia, glazed zirconia, polished then reglazed zirconia, veneering porcelain, and enamel… For enamel antagonists, polished zirconia caused the least wear, and enamel caused moderate wear. Glazed and polished then reglazed zirconia showed significant opposing enamel wear, and veneering porcelain demonstrated the most.”
There has been conjecture that moisture degrades the surfaces of FCZ. Chevalier reported slight degradation of femur heads, with the wearing surfaces exhibiting phase change to monoclinic at a 3-5 micron depth. However, this has been characterized as clinically insignificant due to the extended length of time required and the shallow depth. Burgess, et al, tested heat and moisture tolerance for Zr in an autoclave (July, 2013, Operative Dentistry) and reported that “Zirconia may be considered a wear-friendly material for restorations opposing enamel, even after simulated aging.”
Summary
Both veneered Zr and FCZ has come a long way, technically and clinically. Misunderstandings of its use are now only a historical consideration. Veneered Zr has proven itself to be a reliably esthetic alternative with veneer strengths similar to cast PFMs, while FCZ, generally less esthetic but stronger, can be a worthy consideration for parafunctioning and minimal clearance patients. Regardless of which Zr is ultimately decided upon, we can count on biocompatibility and the need for retentive preps with appropriate reduction.
Clinical Tips
Removing and Polishing Zirconia
Removing Zirconia
Premier Dental was contracted by Henry Schein to develop an exclusive diamond bur for their D4D milling of zirconia. Having successfully created a unique diamond bur for milling purposes, Premier's research and development team set about testing modification of the bur for clinical removal or adjusting of zirconia restorations. The result of their efforts is the Two-Striper ZTech®. The ZTech, using a fine diamond grit, can be used for the following:
-
Adjust all ceramic restorations intra-orally
-
Endo access through all-ceramics (CR Foundation rated Ztech excellent at reducing the degree of mircrofractures)
-
Cut off all-ceramic restorations, especially zirconia
Premier is known for having the best diamond burs in dentistry. That's why we are presenting this for your review. That's also probably why Two Striper ZTech® received "rave" reviews in Reality, 2012. CRA also reviewed ZTech®, July 2012, and listed it amongst their Best Products for 2012.
To view the Two Striper ZTech® in action
http://: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOwOXChH5m4
Polishing Zirconia
Premier Dental has developed a highly unusual system for polishing zirconia, other all-ceramics, and composites, with distinct chairside and intra oral applications. The system begins chairside with the new, open weave Fibra Point pre- polishers, available in barrel, wheel, or tapered shapes, that generate less heat. This is followed by Premier's Diamond Twist SCL paste,™ using felt tip applicators. For intra oral polishing, Premier suggests their intra oral SCO™ Single-paste System for Ceramics and Composites. Combined, the two systems claimed highest honors from Reality and from CRA reviewers. Both pastes use extremely dense concentrations of diamond particles. The intra oral SCO™ Single-paste System, is available with tapered or flat autoclavable polishing brushes and Micro Cloth felt discs, barrels, or tapers, for final high glaze buffing to a mirror-like finish. The polishing paste comes in a twist syringe to avoid cross-contamination and minimize waste.
To view the
Diamond Twist SCL™ / SCO™ Single-paste System for
Ceramics and Composites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxjbj7behZw
Visit Premier Dental for More Information
http://www.premusa.com/dental/newproducts.asp
To Contact Us
info@optindentallab.com
http://www.optindentallab.com
855-321-OPTN (6786)
|
Announcing New Laboratory Category:
OPT-In Insurance: The Answer to Fee Restrictions
OPT-In laboratories with fees & products
Matched to the needs of insurance budgets
|
"It Should be Easier to
Find the Right Dental Laboratory!"
|
Dr.David Hornbrook, FAACD, FACE
A Technician's Guide to Cements and Adhesion, Part 1
Tuesday, November 5th, 8 PM, Eastern
Presentation for OPT-In Member Laboratories
The live webinar for members of OPT-In Dental Laboratory Cooperative will help technicians better understand the complex nature of adhesively placing restorations to tooth structure.
Technicians will be exposed to the different classes of cements, traditional, glass ionomer, resin ionomer, and resins, plus their sub classes, auto-cure, dual-cure, and light cure. Each category will be explained in simple chemical terms, with more details about their proper uses, features & benefits, and their limitations. Additionally, there will be explanations of the three main classes of adhesives, three bottle total etch, two bottle total etch, and self-etching systems, and how their uses are applied to the cementation process. Included in the presentation will be how dual cure systems affect esthetics and the interactions of dual-cure and light-cure systems that are sometimes compatible, and sometimes not.
Dr. Hornbrook will use actual cases accompanied by materials research, their suggested uses, and helpful clinical tips that can be used by OPT-In members during case planning and knowledge sharing with clinicians.
"There is a general lack of understanding by technicians about exactly what is going on in the operatory. Likewise, we dentists are not completely aware of what our technical partners need in order to provide us with the best possible results. In an effort to narrow this schism, we hope to bring improvements through these types of activities, the first being, how restorations are placed and challenges managed."
Dr. David Hornbrook
Graduated from UCLA School of Dentistry in 1986. Serves on the faculty at Baylor University, Tufts University, SUNY at the University at Buffalo, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He also serves on the editorial boards of many leading scientific journals devoted to cosmetic dentistry, including Esthetic Dentistry Update, Practical Periodontics & Aesthetic Dentistry, Signature, and the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry's Journal of Cosmetic Dentistry. Founder of the Hornbrook Group, taking his knowledge and passion to dental programs across the country, founder and director of PAC-live (Pacific Aesthetic Continuum), and co-founder of the Las Vegas Institute as a pioneer of live patient programs – enhancing the quality of dentistry across the country and internationally. For details about Dr. Hornbrook's credentials view his CV
info@optindentallab.com
http://www.optindentallab.com/
|
|
Implant Retorative
Updates
|
|
|
Ti vs Zr Implant Abutments
Ti abutments are known to be reliably strong but also unable to meet the esthetic needs for every case. That has led to the development of Zr abutments, and more recently, lithium disilicate. However, Zr has not proven to be as reliable at Ti, too often, fracturing at the implant interface and resulting in an expensive embarrassment, even in the less taxing anterior regions. Recent modifications using Ti sleeves have attempted to mitigate inherent weaknesses of Zr abutments.
Ti Reinforced Zr Implant Abutments
In 2013, Stimmelmayr tested Ti reinforced Zr abutments by mounting the Zr over Ti sleeves with internal screws that secured the Ti to the implant.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23527351/reload=0;jsessionid=3iTjQn9qvWiA9HStUxAC.52
One of the key parts of the testing was implant abutment diameter, with testing that included abutments of 3.75 mm and 5.5 mm, and Zr abutments with and without Ti reinforcement.
Testing with 120 N and 100,000 cycles of cyclic loading produced no failures. However, further strength tests were more revealing, especially when considering posterior use of Zr for impant abutments.
The median fracture resistance values and standard deviations were 526 N (± 32 N) for 3.75 mm Zr, 1,241 N (± 269 N) for group 3.75 mm Zr with Ti, 1,894 N (± 137 N) for 5.5 mm Zr, and 2,225 N (± 63 N) for 5.5 mm Zr with Ti.
Takeaways for using Zr implant abutments
-
Larger diameters are stronger
-
Ti sleeves provide additional strength
-
Always remember cementability
-
Most often, patient specific CAD/CAM is preferable over stock
-
Always use copious amounts of water if adjustments are required
|
|
|
|
Custom vs Stock Implant Abutments
Stock implant abutments are sometimes the most cost effective means in providing restorative implant solutions. However, that does not stem the debate over whether stock is better than custom, or when one might be preferable.
Strength
Published in 2013, Park, et al, reported on strength differentials between stock and custom implant abutments.
Standardized testing measured the fracture resistance of both stock and custom milled Zr implant abutments.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00426.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Results: "Customized abutments were significantly stronger (1,430.2 N) than the prefabricated abutments (1,064.1 N). The mean marginal adaptation of customized abutments revealed a micro gap that was increased (11.5 µm) over that in prefabricated abutments (4.3 µm)."
Fit
Stock, OEM, are designed to fit implant interfaces perfectly, but may not fit the space nearly as well. Additionally, they can often require a great deal of modification, leading to a compromised restorative solution. Cast-custom abutments have the potential to be patient specific, but are subject to several factors during fabrication that can adversely affect fit and longevity.
CAD/CAM abutments aren't subjected to the above casting manipulations errors. Heat-induced changes of pre-machined abutment platforms during casting procedures reduced the contact between the abutments and corresponding retaining screws, as found by Byrne et al.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391398701088
|
____________________________________________
|
|
|
This Clinical Update is Presented by Your
OPT-In Dental Laboratory Cooperative Partner
http://www.optindentallab.com/dentists/
Experience the Difference an OPT-In Laboratory Owner can Make
To Find the Right Dental Laboratory Partner for Your Practice
Contact Us
info@optindentallab.com
855-321-OPTN (6786)
|
Proud OPT-In Members
Creating Excellence, Partnering in Growth
OPT-In Dental Laboratories...Always Aware of the Clinical Challenges You Face
Call Today and Experience the Difference
Ask for the OPT-In Laboratory Specialty You Need Most
All OPT-In Members own small Dental Laboratories
Dedicated to the successes of the dentists they serve,
The unique needs of each practice, and
Tailored to the individual needs of each patient.
AZ Steve Dearien
Sundance Dental Laboratory
877-429-3543
CA Steve Killian, CDT
Killian Dental Ceramics, Inc.
949-733-3111
FL Rick Sonntag RDT, AACD
4Points Dental Designs, Inc.
(727) 329-8981
KY Marvin Janes, CDT
Janes Denture Services
270-932-3810
MN Tom Dippel
Mississippi/Minnesota Dental Lab
651-457-5380
NY Boris Lezaja, MDT
Boris Dental Lab, Inc.
516-864-2515
NY David Birnbaum
MobilTeK Labs, LLC
917-747-7519
PA Jim Spangler, CDT
Select Dental Studio
717-578-6320
PA Mark Walter, II, MDT
Smile Renovation Studio
570-687-0049
TN Dennis King
King Dental Arts Studio, Inc
423-573-9200
UT Marva, CDT, & Michele Lotsher
Colourtec, Inc.
801-966 8260
VA Larry & Hal Clukey
Quality Dental Lab, Inc.
757-497-8211
WA Mike Dominguez, CDT/TE
Kymata Dental Arts
206-683-9484
|
CA Marc Gerstel, CDT
Seabridge Dental Lab
818 309 8877
CO Pedro Vargas, CDT
Logic Dental Solutions
303-933-9263
IL Jeff Null, CDT
Rock Creek Dental Ceramics
618-632-2237
MD Adam Ben-Zev
Triple Crown Dental, Inc.
410-371-3885
NC Bill Conklin, CDT
Sunbelt Dental Lab
704-527-6277
NY Steve Sciubba
Sciubba Dental Laboroatory
518-339-9440
OR Mark Hidde, CDT
Rogue Valley Dental Arts, Inc.
541-779-6503
PA Rick Knect
RGK Dental Lab, Inc
814-445-7561
PA Michael Young, MDT,Joe Young
Young Dental Lab, Inc., CDL
215-334-8888
VA Aubrey Williams
ServDent Ceramics
757-422-8670
VT Bryan Booth
Booth Dental Lab, Inc.
802-234-4087
WA Tim Trosvig
Trosvig Dental
425-257-1176
GA Douglas Dental Lab
In Dental Office
Private
|
|
About the Author
Dr. Dean Mersky practiced general dentistry 26 years in Manhattan Beach, CA before spending 7 years as director of clinical communication for the Captek Company. Dr Mersky has been a dental lab implant coordinator, a national speaker, authored over a dozen published articles, is a regular on DentalTown.com. He launched OPT-In Management, LLC, in 2012, to help owners of small dental laboratories better understand dentists and the many clinical and business pressures facing today's private practice clinicians.
|
|
|
|
%%PLUGIN_UNSUBSCRIBE: 12179-Unsubscribe%%
|