You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.
The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.
Re: crown - captek
Amatus Cremona
26 Feb 2007 17:37
You have to always plan for a weak link. You have to know where the eventual failure will occur. If you engineer the failure point into right part of the restoration, you get the privilege of redoing the restoration over the next 40 years, rather than eventually extracting the tooth. With a metal crown coping, I would want the porcelain to wear down. If the porcelain is too strong, parafunctional forces force the failure down to the CEJ.
Signature
/
Amatus
/
>> What is wrong with porcelain wear under heavy occlusal forces? Would you >> prefer catastrophic fracture at the gingival crest? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
26 Feb 2007 17:19
> What is wrong with porcelain wear under heavy occlusal forces? Would you > prefer catastrophic fracture at the gingival crest?
I'd prefer neither of these, SIR!! I don't know the newer low-index porcelains, and while I'd heard they were less destructive to natural dentition I hadn't heard that they actually were softer than natural enamel. Certainly I'd rather wear the restoration than the tooth.
Steve
Signature
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001
Amatus Cremona
26 Feb 2007 14:30
What is wrong with porcelain wear under heavy occlusal forces? Would you prefer catastrophic fracture at the gingival crest?
Signature
/
Amatus
/
>> >> Porcelain wear under occlusal forces. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> >>> Steve
Steven Bornfeld
24 Feb 2007 04:10
> Porcelain wear under occlusal forces. > > They fit well and looked good. They just didn't hold up > over time. > > Steve
Wow--not fractured?
Steve
>> Sorry to hear of your bad experience. I haven't used them, and >> the marketing seems to imply superior fit and strength when compared >> to all-ceramics. Otherwise, why use them? How did they fail? >> >> Steve
Steven Fawks
24 Feb 2007 00:52
Porcelain wear under occlusal forces.
They fit well and looked good. They just didn't hold up over time.
Steve
> Sorry to hear of your bad experience. I haven't used them, and the > marketing seems to imply superior fit and strength when compared to > all-ceramics. Otherwise, why use them? How did they fail? > > Steve
Steven Bornfeld
23 Feb 2007 20:30
> Maybe I did something wrong, but I doubt it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > D
Sorry to hear of your bad experience. I haven't used them, and the marketing seems to imply superior fit and strength when compared to all-ceramics. Otherwise, why use them? How did they fail?
Steve
>> My dentist recommended that I get a captek crown + bridge. It will >> cost me $2,000 after insurance. The alternative is to have a silver/ >> metal cown/bridge for $1,200. Is captek worth the extra $800? The >> bridge is for a molar that is hardly seen when i smile.
Steven Fawks
23 Feb 2007 04:26
Maybe I did something wrong, but I doubt it.
The Captek crowns and bridges that I have done have *not* given the durability and longevity of conventional porcelain fused to noble metal.
Looking good for 'a while' doesn't cut it for me.
D
> My dentist recommended that I get a captek crown + bridge. It will > cost me $2,000 after insurance. The alternative is to have a silver/ > metal cown/bridge for $1,200. Is captek worth the extra $800? The > bridge is for a molar that is hardly seen when i smile.
3t
23 Feb 2007 03:45
My dentist recommended that I get a captek crown + bridge. It will cost me $2,000 after insurance. The alternative is to have a silver/ metal cown/bridge for $1,200. Is captek worth the extra $800? The bridge is for a molar that is hardly seen when i smile.