Whats your everyday go to crown

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ira N. Dickerman, CDT on December 15, 2009 at 6:10pm

Captek is popular but in the Northeast docs are still conservative and tend to go with PFM's. Not Np though Precious and semi precious. e.Max is gaining in popularity and the drs love both the fit and the esthetics of lithium disillicate

Permalink Reply by Jorge Garcia on December 17, 2009 at 4:30pm

Here zirconio slows down and docs are returning to CrCo because of price

Permalink Reply by Richard G Knecht on December 18, 2009 at 3:56pm

Zirconia has slowed down to and this month I think we are doing like 3 units. Captek and PFM (noble and high noble) are pretty popular. Doing only a few emax though.
Rick

Permalink Reply by Ira N. Dickerman, CDT on December 18, 2009 at 10:15pm

What type of CrCo alloys are you woring with and where re you located Jorge? Also what ceramic materials are you baking on them?

Jorge Garcia said:

Here zirconio slows down and docs are returning to CrCo because of price

Permalink Reply by Jorge Garcia on December 19, 2009 at 5:05pm

Our lab is near Madrid, Spain
We use CrCo Heraenium P from Heraeus Kulzer
Ceramics are Heraceram for metal and Heraceram Zirconia for zirconia
Jorge

Permalink Reply by Vadim Vainer, RG on January 4, 2010 at 8:58pm

Right now in our lab e.Max is 50%-55% of all restorations, 30% PFM's (HN), 10%-15% FGC (HN) and I would say a ~5% Zirconia crowns per month. From what I see, our Docs switching to e.Max very fast, not without our help of course.
Got e.Max?

Permalink Reply by Dean Vincent on January 16, 2010 at 1:47am

We are in the US in the Pacific NW and run a high aesthetic boutique lab. We do 90% ceramic restorations on HN - over the last two years, as the price of gold has risen we have seen the GPs opt for Zi over HN - fixed price, better aesthetics, strong enough and very natural. Of our high precision work (we specialize in implantological reconstructions) price has not been a factor and HN is the preferred material for strength, machine-ability and working characteristics.

Permalink Reply by Russell DeVreugd on January 21, 2010 at 10:19am

HN PFM's are still the majority in my lab. However, I just finished a maxillary reconstruction of porcelain jackets from # 4- #13. Hand stacked the old fashioned way using d-SIGN porcelain on platinum foil substrate. # 3 & # 14 are PFMs with porcelain labial margins. As can be seen in the before photo, the patient shows very large abfractions. The Dr. decided to keep his margins short of these areas. I will be doing the mandibular arch next. I thought this was an interesting case to share.

Attachments:

• Dr.002.jpg, 155 KB
• Dr.033.jpg, 115 KB
• Dr. B.012.jpg, 120 KB

Permalink Reply by Richard G Knecht on January 21, 2010 at 11:24am

Russell,
Nice to see you here. We have been doing mostly PFM lately and a few all ceramic. Anyone seeing an increase in work ? Seems my clients are getting pretty busy and the work is flowing pretty steady again. Here's a lava case i did a while back and I do like the VM9 porcelain.

Hope this comes through.
Rick

Permalink Reply by Richard G Knecht on January 22, 2010 at 11:59am

Richard G Knecht said:

Russell,
Nice to see you here. We have been doing mostly PFM lately and a few all ceramic. Anyone seeing an increase in work ? Seems my clients are getting pretty busy and the work is flowing pretty steady again. Here's a lava case i did a while back and I do like the VM9 porcelain.

Hope this comes through.
Rick

Permalink Reply by Dean Mersky on April 27, 2010 at 8:48am

Like all of you, I get to see all the different materials used at every different level and capability. To be perfectly honest, the all-ceramic materials offer very nice esthetics for many situations. But, they are limited in their scope and versatility. The result can be compromises in the results with respect to tissue health, strength, accuracy, efficacy, and even sometimes esthetics. PFMs have much more versatility and applicability. However, only one material offers it all, versatility, tissue health, and esthetic potential, Captek. Rick has delivered some gorgeous Captek restorations. Attached are two 3-unit bridges I did with the original Captek in about 1997. Only 1 mm facial reduction, margins .5-1 mm below the tissue with metal to the edge, ovate pontics. The order is Pre Op, 1 month post seat, 4 year recall, all 35 mm Ektachrome converted to digital.

Forcing all-ceramics into every situation is not serving the dentist or the patient in the best way at all times. All-ceramics are a viable alternative to consider when truly appropriate. That will not always be the case. However, there is no good reason to continue to use cast PFMs. They are not esthetic, don't fit predictably well, and are horrible for tissue health. The only viable solutions for today's C&B should be an all-ceramic or Captek. If I were in practice today, I would still use primarily, if not entirely, Captek, for the very reasons I have mentioned above and have shown in the attached photos.

Attachments:

• Fran pre op.jpg, 32 KB
• Fran 30 day seat.jpg, 32 KB
• Fran 4 yr recall.jpg, 31 KB

Permalink Reply by Eng Joo Koh, RDT on November 19, 2010 at 1:38pm

PFM crowns still have their place, although crowns made with the zirconia substructure are becoming more popular. We use only gold alloy (51% to 75% Au content) for the PFM crowns but with the recent high price of Gold, I think zirconia material seems to be the ideal alternative. Fortunately for us, we have the Cerec In-Lab milling system in the lab, so we mill to our heart's content. Like to share a picture of a recent case.

Attachments:

• DSCN3786.JPG, 927 KB