3M responds to Ivoclar…

October 19, 2009

As a Lava ALDC, we had the opportunity to watch a webcast in which 3M mounts a challenge to Ivoclar’s latest e.Max marketing blitz – you know, the one touting e.Max as the most robust all-ceramic material on the marketing.

It appears that its possible Ivoclar’s research conclusions may be tainted by some questionable design parameters within their study.  According to 3M, potential issues include:

1.  The NYU study used an extremely short time horizon simulating 100,000 cycles which amounts to approximately 3 months intraorally.  3M has intraoral studies on Lava going back over 7 years.  I have to admit that with Ivoclar’s study showing a failure rate of 90% at 100,000 cycles, I’m not sure what point 3M is trying make with regards to the number of cycles…

2.  The zirconia used in the study is Ivoclar’s own e.Max ZirCad material, and the design of the veneered framework was incorrect with respect to known principles of ceramic support – a probable contributing factor to the relatively poor showing of the zirconia restorations.  During the webinar, 3M took the opportunity to espouse the use of their Lava 5.0 software to insure proper framework design.  I’m all for that – I just wish the Lava software functioned even 1/10th as well as the 3Shape CAD package.

3.  3M pointed out that not all zirconia is created equally.  I’m sure their right about this, but having used various zirconia products for about 8 years now, I can say our experience is that -of the one’s we’ve used (Cercon, Procera Zirconia, Invizion, e.Max ZirCad, Vericore, Lava, and Crystal), there has been no discernible difference in failure rates.  All of the mentioned materials have a failure rate of less than 1% for us.

4.  3M mentions that lithium disilicate’s strength is diminished in a wet environment.  I did not know that, and would like Ivoclar’s take on that statement.  If that turns out to be true, I think I would have to strongly consider never buying another product from Ivoclar.  They have some great people working for them, but such a development – on top of memories of Targis/Vectris and Empress 2 – would completely destroy the company’s credibility for me.

I’m going to watch Ivoclar’s e.Max webinar on Wednesday.  3M’s questions regarding the subject matter should make it more interesting viewing…

BTW – as part of the webinar, 3M said they are coming out with a loyalty program for Lava by which doctors can gain access to special educational events by going online to validate their Lava restorations using the Lava bar code label.  I wonder about the efficacy of such a program considering that these labels have been handed out like candy in the past (they are supposed to be dispensed with each Lava restoration and come from the milling center).  Also, taking in to account the fact that many doctors request a zirconia restoration, and the laboratory makes the final decision as to the actual material choice, why aren’t laboratories rewarded for their loyalty?  Not a sermon, just a thought…

© 2009, Jeff Saylors. All rights reserved.