11.09.2014 Views

PDF Version - Glidewell Dental Labs

PDF Version - Glidewell Dental Labs

PDF Version - Glidewell Dental Labs

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Letters to the Editor<br />

“Dear Dr. DiTolla,<br />

I was planning to do a resin-retained<br />

(Maryland) bridge on a patient of mine<br />

to replace tooth #4. Tooth #3 has an<br />

occlusal amalgam and a weak MF cusp,<br />

for which I plan to do a MOF onlay preparation.<br />

Tooth #5 is virgin, so a distal<br />

rest and lingual wing are also planned.<br />

I would like to use Prismatik Clinical<br />

Zirconia or Cercon ® for this case, but<br />

I need your expertise on preparation design<br />

and material choice. I spoke to a lab<br />

technician already but want information<br />

from the head honcho. Mahalo.”<br />

- Todd R. Okazaki, DDS, Haleiwa, Hawaii<br />

Dear Todd,<br />

You have three Maryland bridge<br />

choices, none of them great as a permanent<br />

restoration.<br />

Your prep design ideas are excellent:<br />

Go with the MOF onlay prep on<br />

tooth #3 and the distal rest/lingual<br />

wing on tooth #5.<br />

Choice 1: PFM with metal wings and<br />

ceramic pontic tooth #4. The upside<br />

is you can bond to the metal with<br />

resin (alloy primer with Kuraray Panavia<br />

F); the downside is the MOF<br />

on tooth #3 is ugly if you can see it<br />

when the patient smiles.<br />

4<br />

www.chairsidemagazine.com<br />

Choice 2: Composite reinforced with<br />

fiber (Kerr Premise Indirect with<br />

Vectris ® ). The upside is that any resin<br />

cement will bond with it because it<br />

is resin; this will give you the best<br />

bond strength. The downside is that<br />

the bridge is weaker than the PFM<br />

Maryland.<br />

Choice 3: Zirconia bridge (3M <br />

ESPE Lava ). The upside is that the<br />

bridge is as strong as the PFM and<br />

better looking. The downside is you<br />

can’t bond to zirconia, even with Panavia<br />

F or Parkell C&B-Metabond ® . It<br />

might be tough to get the distal rest<br />

and the lingual wing to bond to the<br />

tooth.<br />

As you can see, there is really no right<br />

answer, per se. When my patient declines<br />

a single-tooth implant and we<br />

decide to use a Maryland bridge, I<br />

usually tell them that it is not a permanent<br />

restoration like a fixed bridge<br />

or an implant. When they agree to<br />

that concept, I will usually go with<br />

either Choice 1 or Choice 2, based<br />

on their esthetic needs and the size<br />

of their smile, thickness of their anterior<br />

teeth, so on and so forth.<br />

I have tried a zirconia Maryland<br />

bridge or two and have not had good<br />

luck. Bisco claims its new bonding<br />

agent for zirconia, Z-PRIME Plus,<br />

will bond resin to zirconia, but I<br />

haven’t seen any independent confirmation<br />

of this yet. We are currently<br />

testing it in our R&D Department at<br />

the lab to see if we can observe an<br />

increase in bond strengths.<br />

I hope that helps!<br />

- Dr. DiTolla<br />

“Dear Dr. DiTolla,<br />

Thanks for the input. I’ve decided to go<br />

with a resin-retained bridge for the following<br />

reasons:<br />

1) The patient cannot afford an implant.<br />

2) The patient is female with no evidence<br />

of parafunctional habits.<br />

3) The location of the bridge.<br />

4) Its conservative nature.<br />

I prepped the case today. Tooth #3<br />

ended up being an MOL inlay. The MF<br />

cusp appears to be strong. I was wondering,<br />

because the weak link appears<br />

to be the bond strength to zirconia, is<br />

it possible to incorporate female potholes<br />

(micro ones) into the internal surface<br />

of the zirconia so my cement (C&B-<br />

Metabond) can fill in the females and<br />

lock in the bridge mechanically? That<br />

is, use mechanical rather than adhesive<br />

retention to the zirconia. Why use Lava<br />

instead of Prismatik Clinical Zirconia or<br />

Cercon? Is it because it can be colored?<br />

My experience is that Lava is the most<br />

esthetic, but your lab tech recommended<br />

Prismatik CZ. Also, would you be<br />

able to send me a sample of Z-PRIME?<br />

By the way, it would be an honor if<br />

you used my name in your magazine<br />

– only if you send me an autographed<br />

copy, though. Thank you for sharing<br />

your great practical ideas. Mahalo.”<br />

- Todd R. Okazaki, DDS, Haleiwa, Hawaii<br />

Dear Todd,<br />

Typically the wings on a Maryland<br />

bridge are too thin to place retentive<br />

potholes.<br />

We only have one sample of Z-PRIME<br />

at the moment and it’s in the hands<br />

of R&D to test how well it works.<br />

Perhaps Bisco would be willing to<br />

send you one?<br />

I tend to use Lava as an example of a<br />

zirconia-based material because it is<br />

familiar to most dentists. Our Prismatik<br />

CZ is colored the same way.<br />

Thanks for letting us use the letter,<br />

and I promise you’ll be receiving a<br />

signed copy of the magazine! Take<br />

some great before-and-after pictures<br />

and they might find their way into<br />

Chairside, too.<br />

- Dr. DiTolla

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!