Page 12 - CEREC Q1 | 2014

10 | CERECDOCTORS.COM | QUARTER 1 | 2014
| | | C H R I S T E N S E N
3a 3b
3c 3d 3e
BruxZir and e.maxCAD are, so far, performing equally
well and without any problems. This is interesting since the
two are so different from each other in both composition and
physical properties. Obvious indications for selection of one
rather than the other would be:
• Esthetics: e.maxCAD is the clear winner
• Exceptionalstrengthforbruxers,clenchersandwhereocclusal
clearance is severely limited: BruxZir is the safer choice
Beyond the points listed above, this study shows the two
materials offer equal service regardless of where they were
used in the oral cavity. The only negative does not actually
involve either of the materials themselves, but involves one
of the accessories used on both materials for purely esthetic
reasons.
Fig. 3: SEM images of BruxZir:
(a) The smooth glazed restoration at initial placement.
(b) The 10x image shows the mesial marginal ridge at
2 years stripped of glaze and the zirconia body material
exposed with roughened glaze around all edges of the
defect.
(c) The 24x magnification of the defect shows the area
more clearly. The letters RG indicate roughened glaze,
Z indicates zirconia stripped of its glaze, and
G indicates location of undisturbed glaze.
(d and e) Two 364x images of the same defect
demonstrate the smoothness of the exposed zirconia
(left) and roughness of the glaze surrounding the
exposed zirconia (right).