Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Question about dental crowns?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Garret Swayne - 06 Sep 2006 23:12 GMT
I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my molars.
His office manager then came in to tell me the various options and their
prices.  She seemed to really want to steer me away from a
Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal crown (PFM) and instead toward
Porcelain-Fused-to-Gold (PFG).  I suspect it was because they can only
charge me $400 for the PFM, but they can charge $600 for the PFG, due to a
discount dental plan I have.  She tried to give the impression that PFM
crowns don't last as long and can cause an erosion or discoloration of the
gums, as compared with PFG.  She was kind of vague about it, citing only
annecdotal reports of these sorts of problems.  But is there any validity to
what she's saying?  Is there any online source where I can read an objective
comparison of PFM crowns with PFG?  It would seem to me that since the
porcelain covers the metal anyway, it shouldn't make any difference
appearance-wise, whether the hidden metal is gold or one of the base metals.
And is there any reason why it would be better for the actual tooth itself
to be in contact with gold rather than some other base metal?
(Incidentally, what kind of base metal is normally used in PFM?)  Aside from
having your teeth be "more valuable" due to the gold content underneath the
fused porcelain, is there any advantage to PFG over PFM?  I'd just as soon
save the $200, unless there is a compelling reason to go with the gold.  Any
help is appreciated...

-Garret Swayne
garret (at) garretswayne (dot) com
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 06 Sep 2006 23:26 GMT
> I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my molars.
> His office manager then came in to tell me the various options and their
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> -Garret Swayne
> garret (at) garretswayne (dot) com

    First of all,  no dental gold (and certainly no casting dental gold) is
100% gold.
    Many dentists will tell you they prefer high noble casting alloys for
their workability and long-term success.  I have differed with some
others who have contributed to this newsgroup in the past regarding
non-precious alloys.  I have seldom encountered problems with
non-precious alloys, which are generally variations on stainless steel.
 There is no question that high noble crowns are easier to machine, but
this generally is not an issue IMO with a good lab that can make an
accurate casting.
    Before 1980, the actual cost of gold in a crown wasn't really
significant, so there was little experience with non-precious alloys.
The early non-precious alloys contained nickel, which a significant
number of people are sensitive to.  It also sometimes left a nice green
tarnish line at the gumline.  However, after the Hunt brothers
manipulated the precious metal markets in 1980, it became necessary to
find reasonably good substitutes.
    My lab prefers working with precious  metals when implants are
concerned, because there is more metal-to-metal contact and they feel
the compatibility of the different prosthetic components are enhanced by
using all-precious.  Otherwise, I use either with excellent success.
    BTW, the $200 fee differential will be mostly eaten up by the cost of
the alloy, so I think your dentist's motives are not money, but their
own preference (to which I feel they are entitled, based on their own
experience).

Steve

Signature

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Patrick Coghlan - 07 Sep 2006 13:52 GMT
>     Before 1980, the actual cost of gold in a crown wasn't really
> significant, so there was little experience with non-precious alloys.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> manipulated the precious metal markets in 1980, it became necessary to
> find reasonably good substitutes.

The Hunt Bros. tried to corner the silver market...and failed.

The increase in the price of gold has more to do with the US going off a
fixed gold price ($35/oz.) and allowing their currency to float.  Most
western governments have tried to keep the US dollar as a reserve
currency, and have dumped their gold reserves over the years to preserve
the value of the US dollar w.r.t gold.  This is becoming more difficult
to do; witness the fact that gold has doubled in price in recent years.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 07 Sep 2006 14:25 GMT
>>     Before 1980, the actual cost of gold in a crown wasn't really
>> significant, so there was little experience with non-precious alloys.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> the value of the US dollar w.r.t gold.  This is becoming more difficult
> to do; witness the fact that gold has doubled in price in recent years.

    True, but during the Hunt's market manipulation, the price of gold went
to $800/oz and silver to $50.  Everything we use made of these metals
(gold alloys, x-ray film) skyrocketed in price immediately.  When the
prices collapsed, it took a very long time for the end user (me) to see
the prices start to decrease--and they never returned to what they were
a few years before.
    Whatever the cause, the spike in gold prices meant that the industry
had to find substitutes for gold that dentists and labs were willing to
use--and they did--regardless what happened after that in the
commodities markets.

Steve

Signature

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Garret Swayne - 08 Sep 2006 10:42 GMT
So are you saying there's nothing inherently inferior about using non-gold
based alloys in preparing a good dental crown?
-Garret Swayne

>> I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my
>> molars. His office manager then came in to tell me the various options
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Steve
Steven Bornfeld - 08 Sep 2006 16:17 GMT
> So are you saying there's nothing inherently inferior about using non-gold
> based alloys in preparing a good dental crown?
> -Garret Swayne

    Not exactly.  Some labs and some dentists will show a decided
preference for high noble metals.  They are easier to work with, and
some believe yellow alloys (notably with Cap-tek crowns, which are
really a different kettle of fish altogether), give a warmer, more
cosmetic appearance.  I don't think this last is really a consideration
with regard to molar crowns (I should say that I have one crown in my
mouth, a full-cast, all high-noble crown on a lower second molar with no
porcelain).
    The preferences of the operator are not to be discounted; still, I have
no problems and have seen no significant differences in crowns holding
up, porcelain fractures etc. with non-precious alloys.
    I will make one minor caveat--an observation by my brother that he
still sees a greater incidence of inflammation at the gumline with
non-precious alloys.  He feels he has only seen this in female patients.
 If true, there is no way to know what component of the alloy the
patient is responding to; as I said few of these alloys contain nickel
anymore.  But a patient can develop a sensitivity at least theoretically
to just about anything, including some of the components of even
high-noble alloys.
    Personally, I think that this last consideration (not to discount my
brother) is less important than other considerations such as proper
contacts, contour and esp. not burying the margin of the crown half a
mile under the gum.
    I agree BTW with what Bill says about the fees being very low, but it
isn't clear to me whether this is the entire fee or just your copayment
in an insurance situation.
    There is also another health issue I should mention, though it doesn't
involve you--but does involve dental and lab personnel.  A longtime
poster to this newsgroup became a crusader for the removal of beryllium
from casting alloys.  Beryllium is used to increase hardness and other
mechanical properties.  It is apparently still used in some.  Beryllium
is exceptionally toxic when inhaled, and this gentleman's wife developed
beryllium lung disease as a consequence of working in a dental lab and
breathing the dust.  I agree with him that there is no place for this
metal in lab casting alloys, and that it poses an obvious and
demonstrable hazard to lab personnel.

Steve

>>>I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my
>>>molars. His office manager then came in to tell me the various options
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>>
>>Steve
Bill - 07 Sep 2006 19:53 GMT
> I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my molars.
> His office manager then came in to tell me the various options and their
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> charge me $400 for the PFM, but they can charge $600 for the PFG, due to a
> discount dental plan I have.

> -Garret Swayne
> garret (at) garretswayne (dot) com
__________________________________

A few relevant points here --

1. I get the impression that you went to this dentist ONLY because he
is on your dental "plan." That's usually not the best way to choose a
dentist. If you suspect that this dentist's prime motivation is money,
and not your health, how can you trust your health treatment to him,
regardless of which crown material is used?

2. If you have the type of "plan" that forces you to sign up for a
dentist on the plan's list, consider this fact: $400 is not a realistic
price for a well-made crown that will fit and function properly. A
crown can barely be made for $600, but only if the materials cost is
kept to a bare minimum. The $600 would not allow for much gold at all.
What do you really think you can get for that amount? A crown that
fits?

3. As has been discussed on this newsgroup before, when a dental "plan"
has unrealistic, unworkable low fees, the dental office is forced to
find a way to charge you MORE than the unrealistic fee. Otherwise, the
office will go bankrupt. Do you really want to work with such an
unrealistic dental plan? And do you really want to entrust your
treatment to a dental office that is forced to bump up your charges,
just to survive?

Good luck to you.
- dentaldoc
Garret Swayne - 08 Sep 2006 10:54 GMT
Actually, this dentist was not in my plan.  I went to him because he offered
a very inexpensive intitial exam/x-rays/consult/cleaning offer and I wanted
to get a second opinion from him as compared with the other dentist I had
gone to who was officially on my discount plan.  This new dentist's offer
included 50% off any non-cosmetic procedure and the way it worked out was
that a PFM crown would be $400 while a PFG crown (which was considered
cosmetic) would be $600.  I do like the dentist and I trust he would do a
good job of fitting the new crown to my tooth.  So do I understand you
correctly that you think there's something inherently inferior about PFM
versus PFG?  You would pay the extra $200 for the gold?
-Garret

>> I went to a dentist who determined I should get a crown on one of my
>> molars.
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Good luck to you.
> - dentaldoc
Bill - 08 Sep 2006 18:36 GMT
> Actually, this dentist was not in my plan.  I went to him because he offered
> a very inexpensive intitial exam/x-rays/consult/cleaning offer and I wanted
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> versus PFG?  You would pay the extra $200 for the gold?
> -Garret

__________________________

The dental labs in my town can provide a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown
with at LEAST four different types of metal: non-precious alloy, a
low-percentage gold alloy, a high-percentage gold alloy, and a "Captek"
style crown (very, very thin high-gold alloy under thicker porcelain).

The costs of the local labs' porcelain-fused crowns usually do not vary
by more than about $100 from top to bottom. In the lab I use, the
variation is certainly not anywhere near $200.

The greatest cost in crown fabrication is usually the labor, not the
materials.

For this reason, SOME labs have started sending out their cheaper
crowns to overseas subcontractors. As the labor is cheap in these
offshore locations, those labs often show a LARGE variation between
their cheapest crowns and their most expensive. In these cases, the
variation is not due to the materials used, but to the fact that
foreign labor is used.

The local labs in my town make all their crowns themselves, so the cost
variations are due to different materials, and the actual weight of the
gold alloy used in a particular crown.

As the labor costs are the same, the cost variations of gold vs.
non-gold porcelain fused crowns are minimal, as stated above.

Best regards,
- dentaldoc
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.