Posted 1374 days ago
I have a love/hate relationship with the copy and mirror function in the software. For years it was such a promising tool, but I could never get good initial proposals. Today, with the 5.2 software, the copy and mirror function is fixed, and I am routinely meeting when it coincides with the unique central incisors.
This patient filed a main complaint of their malaise crown in the tooth #9. He has a tooth trauma history when he was a child and this is his third restoration. This crown has a leg in service for 10 years, but now the patient would like to replace her for her daughter’s next wedding (Figure 1). As you can see in this retracted view (Figure 2), the crown has some thick problems that is causing the stump to be shown. It also has spots on the oral margin and the shape of the restoration is not perfectly symmetrical with the tooth #8.
Figure 1: Preoperative condition
Figure 2: retracted view
I explained the aesthetic challenges with the treatment of a single center versus the entire smile, mainly the inability to change the shadow and the general contour of the remaining teeth. He was quite insistent that he just wanted to replace the tooth #9 to coincide with the length and shape of the existing central #8.
After eliminating the existing ceramic crown, we designate the restoration as a copy and mirror and restore it with Ivoclar E.Max (Figure 3). You can see how much of the tooth structure was previously reduced, so it was limited in my material options (Figure 4). With this ceramic thickness, it would be disseminated to control the value and coincide with the transludence of its existing tooth. After drawing my margin, then the passage of the copy line to circumscribe the contralateral tooth, in this case #8 (Figure 5).
Figure 3: Case details
Figure 4: Previous teeth preparation
Figure 5: Copy line
The initial proposal was perfect (Figure 6). I just had to adjust the mesial and distal contacts, use the soft tool and the restoration was ready to manufacture. At this point, I like to show patients the final proposal and explain what they could expect when delivered. In this case, we discussed the gingival embasura and the potential of a black triangle due to the triangular shape of its centrals. Since I used a 2 cord technique to retract the gingiva, due to the depth of its existing preparations, I felt comfortable with the probability of a gingival rebound to close the space.
Figure 6: Initial proposal
This case was manufactured using my law of 4 dried engines/mcxl. With the 4 motor milling machines, it has the option of additional search grinding, which produces a finer and more true restoration, with less less excessive and higher anatomical details. The software will predetermine a fine ground (Figure 7), and once the clean tools are inserted, the extra fine option will be aviaxable (Figure 8).
Figure 7: Fine grinding predetermined measure
Figure 8: Extra fine fine grinding option
At the beginning of the manufacturing work, it can be noted that the time is almost double to get thinner (Figure 9). However, after the touch process is completed, this time it is often reduced to a more realistic amount. In this case we started with 19:29 and after the touch process, we got off at 13:49 with an extra fine ground.
Figure 9: Grinding times
Our shadow selection before starting was A2-Mt. The patient decided to inform me since we were placing the block in the milling machine that also whiten horses and horses to make sure the crown will whiten along with the teeth! So, we decided to increase the value and jump to an A1-MT and allow your teeth to blend up with the color.
Here are the 2 -week tracking photos (Figure 10). You can see the slightly higher value in n. ° 9 and the black triangle still present (Figure 11). In general, I wait at least 6-8 weeks for the complete maturation of the tissue, so I will continue to follow it and publish the final photos in a few months once the money laundering has settled and the fabric recovers to close the space (Figure 12).
Figure 10: Two weeks monitoring
Figure 11: Light interproximal space
Figure 12: Pre-Op vs Post-Opop