Chicago…

February 26, 2010

Happened to pass by the Lava Users Group Meeting this afternoon.  Here’s a few impressions -

-  Not very well attended.  I would put the head count at somewhere around 50.  Chalk it up to the economy, or bad weather but there doesn’t seem to be the same number of people here this year that there has been in the past.

-  Lava DVS may be worthy of a look-see.  The premise of the restoration is that you can use the Lava Design software to model a full contour image of the restoration, and then the program will automatically split the files enabling the simultaneous production of an anatomical Lava coping (guaranteeing adequate ceramic support) and a milled, synthetic feldspathic “over pattern”.  The coping would be shaded, and the DVS material would be milled out of one of four “enamel” shades.  The two components are then “melded” via the use of a special Fusion ceramic (akin to a liner, and available in 10 shades).  The whole complex is fired in a conventional porcelain oven, reportedly resulting in a restoration that is higher in fracture resistance than a conventionally layered crown, or e.Max CAD.

I’m not quite clear on the DVS vs. e.Max claim.  The flexural strength of the DVS material is reported to be around 95 MPa.  Ivoclar claims e.Max CAD’s number is 360 MPa – 3M stated that the number was actually closer to 215 MPa, but that’s still twice as strong as the DVS veneering material.  3M’s claim that the DVS has a higher resistance to fracture was based on 4-pt ball bearing test with the forces being directed vertically, so I get that the DVS material supported by the Lava coping would be stronger under those circumstances.  I simply wonder if we would see the same results in lateral or protrusive movements.

I know –  canine disclusion takes care of all that, right?

Now, for the other side of the story – Productivity.  3m threw up lots of testamonials from beta labs claiming significant increases in the productivity of ceramists producing DVS crowns vs. layering or pressing.  The one stat that stuck out for me was it took said ceramists, on average, roughly 18 minutes less time to produce a DVS restoration.  I’m not sure, but I don’t think that included the scanning and design of the restoration.  3M would not divulge the cost of the DVS blocks, but just for fun let’s say you would have to pay an ALMC $20 to mill the DVS overpattern.  How many ceramists out there are making $60/hour?

Let’s say your ceramist makes $30/hour.  If you saved 18 minutes ($9), but it cost you an additional $20 in materials….well, I’m not sure I get it.

That being said, I would like to do a little testing of my own, and I would like 3M to supply me with a DVS Trialnkit – at no charge.

Why?

At the end of their presentation they talked briefly about opening up the Lava mills to 3Shape and DentalWings scans.  As part of that presentation, one slide showed the pricing for the various levels at which a lab can participate in scanning and COS.  I noticed the COS margin marking software is now down to $2995.  As one of the very first labs to get on board with COS, I paid $10,000.  I advocated COS – strongly – on this blog, and directly with my client base (not to much avail, mind you).  I feel a little…how shall I put it? UNDERCUT!!!

Yeah, sour grapes. Sue me.

So, in the words of Bill Murray in Caddyshack – “How about a little sumpin’, sumpin’?  You know, for the effort?”  I will take a DVS Trial Kit rather than Total Consciousness on my death bed…

© 2010, Jeff Saylors. All rights reserved.