Page 11 - CEREC Q1 | 2014

QUARTER 1 | 2014 | CERECDOCTORS.COM | 9
Fig. 2: SEM images of e.maxCAD processed
following the 27 minute post-milling protocol:
(a) The smooth glazed restoration at initial placement.
(b) The 10x image at 3 years shows glaze degradation at
an occlusal contact.
(c) At 66x magnification, the defect shows roughened
glaze (see RG) surrounding an inner core of exposed
lithium disilicate body material (see LD).
(d and e) Two 364x images of the same defect show the
smoother exposed lithium disilicate (left) and rough-
ened glaze surrounding the exposed body material
(right). These higher magnification images demon-
strate the difference in roughness of the two adjacent
surfaces that occlude with the opposing dentition.
2a
2c 2d 2e
2b
abrasive and wearing to opposing dentition than the underlying lithiumdisilicate and zirconiamaterials.
(12.5 minutes processing and 27 minutes processing)
• LAVA Ultimate resin nano ceramic
• ENAMIC resin infiltrated ceramic (with Celtra DUO and
Suprinity zirconia reinforced lithium silicate, planned for
early 2014 placement)
This informal report concerns the lack of durability of the
glazes used on two of the above materials ­— e.maxCAD and
BruxZir. It is relevant to readers because almost all use one
or both of these materials, and most glaze their restorations.
First, the good news. After three years, both materials are
performing exceptionally well, with virtually no cracks, chips,
breaks, surface degradation, wear or discoloration. This is
noteworthy because all of these problems have occurred for
years in standard resin-basedand ceramicmaterials of thepast.