Page 44 - CEREC Q3|2013

42 | cerecdoctors.com | quarter 3 | 2013
figs. 25, 26: It is important for
laboratories and dentists to understand
the realities of resin stereolithographic
models. Even though many inconsisten-
cies from traditional impressions and
stone model techniques are overcome,
there are slight variances that the clinical
teammust adjust for. This is shown when
comparing the same abutment of resin
and of plaster type IV under magnifica-
tion. In the lateral view, on the left a
rounded preparation angle of the resin
abutment, on the right the preparation
edge accurately reproduced with a
plaster abutment.
fig. 27: Reproduction of a lithium
disilicate ceramic crown: marginal fit of
the same resin abutment crown on the
left and a plaster abutment on the right
fig. 28: This image at higher magnifica-
tion shows that the resin model (left) has
a marginal fit horizontal that overlaps the
emergence profile. Conversely, on the tradi-
tional plaster die (right), the defect is much
less. Clinicians must watch for discrepan-
cies in both impressioning systems.
fig. 29: Digital Captek Coping shows
optimal marginal fit
fig. 30: Evaluation of transmucosal
implants and final installation tightened
to 35 Ncm
fig. 31: Trial of the Captek bridge
fig. 32: The ceramic finish was applied
in compliance with the functional and
esthetic standards that were programmed
during the provisional design phase
| | | Pascetta and Scar i ng i
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
29