Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / September 2006
Question about dental crowns?
|
|
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
|
|
|