Why Dentists Love BruxZir Solid Zirconia
by Michael C. DiTolla, DDS, FAGD
I graduated from dental school at the University of the Pacific
Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry in 1988, and every crown I
placed during my time there was a PFM. I had done some cast gold
crowns on typodonts, but literally every crown I placed on a patient
was a PFM. So you can see why I thought the PFM was the workhorse
that would take me through my dental career. I would do an
all-ceramic crown in the anterior when aesthetics trumped
strength, but I was otherwise living in a PFM world. Most of the
doctors I talked to back then felt the same way. Even when I started
practicing in a laboratory 11 years ago, it was clear the majority of
American dentists felt that way. This held true until 2007.
2007 was the year IPS e.max (Ivoclar Vivadent; Amherst, New
York) was introduced to the dental market, and I like to refer to
that time as the beginning of the “Monolithic Revolution.” Of the
crowns we were fabricating at Glidewell Laboratories in 2007,
PFMs made up 65 percent and 22 percent were all-ceramic crowns.
Fast-forward to 2011, after the introduction of BruxZir in 2009,
and the percentages have flipped. In 2011, 65 percent of the
crowns we fabricated were all-ceramic and 22 percent were PFMs.
Seeing this type of change in a short, five-year period is nothing
short of amazing. The PFM we all came to know and trust is disappearing
more quickly than anyone could have imagined.
While IPS e.max ignited this monolithic revolution, BruxZir
Solid Zirconia (Glidewell Laboratories; Newport Beach,
California) is now carrying the torch as well. We realized that dentists
were yearning for a high-strength, cementable all-ceramic
crown, even if it wasn’t the most aesthetic crown available.
We assumed dentists were attracted to the strength of BruxZir
crowns, as demonstrated by our hammer test. (To view the
“Hammer Test: BruxZir vs. PFM” video, visit www.bruxzir.com.)
However, most of the comments we were getting from dentists didn’t
have anything to do with the strength of the material. The majority
of the comments we received were about how well BruxZir
crowns and bridges fit compared to the PFMs they were receiving
from us. Now we consistently hear from dentists that the margins
on their BruxZir crowns and bridges feel better to their explorer
than those on the PFMs they used to prescribe. A closer look at the
tooth-restoration interface and emergence profile shows why.
Figure 1 shows an ideal PFM prep with 2mm of occlusal
reduction, 1.5mm of axial reduction and 1mm of gingival reduction.
This ideal reduction provides enough room for the technician
to build a natural-looking PFM. This amount of reduction is
necessary in order to have enough room for the metal coping, the
opaque layer and the porcelain, which have a minimal thickness
of about 1mm. If a dentist gives us the ideal 1mm of reduction in
the gingival third, the crown can have an acceptable emergence
profile, as seen in figure 1. When an explorer is run over the margin,
it will feel closed, and there will not be any bulk of material
to catch on the explorer. It will have a smooth flow from the contour
of the tooth to the contour of the crown.
Figure 2 represents the typical PFM prep we receive with a
feather-edge margin. While this type of conservative margin is
fine for cast gold or a PFM with a metal margin, it does not work
well for a PFM with a disappearing margin. When a PFM is fabricated
for this prep, there is a bulky 1mm margin on the PFM
that catches on the explorer. Even if the margin is sealed, the
emergence profile is unacceptable. In fact, it is often difficult to
tell whether the margin is closed because of the way the explorer
hangs up on the marginal overhang.
Figure 3 represents the typical PFM prep we receive with a
BruxZir crown in place. Because it is a monolithic crown and does
not have multiple layers, it can be milled to a feather edge; there is
no bulk of material, or “speed bump,” at the margin. Many dentists
even tell us their explorer can’t detect where the tooth ends and the
BruxZir restoration begins. Rather than being another all-ceramic
material that forces you to do a different type of preparation, BruxZir adapts to the type of prep you prefer to do. If you prefer
doing a feather-edge or light chamfer margin, BruxZir handles it
with minimal thickness, ensuring the best emergence profile that is
attainable with a tooth-colored material.
To dive a little deeper into the production numbers at our laboratory,
we took a look at our 30 largest BruxZir accounts, which also
happened to be our larger accounts prior to the launch of BruxZir in
2009. We excluded group practices because we wanted to compare
the same doctors’ work, before and after the introduction of BruxZir.
We compared the total remake rate of these dentists in 2008 (prior to
the launch of BruxZir) to their total remake rate in 2011 (after they
had become our largest BruxZir accounts). The numbers were staggering.
On average, there was a 34.3 percent reduction in their
remake rate. This decrease was undoubtedly due to the improvement
in fit, as it could be argued that these BruxZir restorations were likely
the aesthetic equivalent of the PFMs they were replacing.
The other part of the fit equation stems from the fact that
BruxZir is a CAD/CAM-processed material. Unlike restorations
built by hand, there is no variability in restorations that are digitally
designed and milled. For example, we can set a parameter of 25
microns of die spacer under the crown, and it will always be exactly
25 microns. In the past, we could try to paint one thin layer of die
spacer on a die to achieve that same 25-micron layer, but it would
certainly vary in thickness from technician to technician.
Furthermore, if a technician left the cap off the bottle, the acetone
would evaporate and a thin coat of this die spacer might now be 75
microns thick.
Consistency has traditionally been the greatest challenge in
our laboratory because it takes constant effort to standardize procedures
from one technician to the next. CAD/CAM technology
has been the consistency equalizer for us. With BruxZir, we are
able to measure that change in the form of reduced remakes.
BruxZir was designed for very specific situations – when the dentist
wanted to use cast gold or metal and the patient said no to
these materials. Even though BruxZir originated as a material
intended for a very narrow set of clinical indications, today it
makes up nearly 50 percent of the crowns we fabricate. If you
haven’t yet prescribed a BruxZir crown, consider trying one the
next time you want a high-strength, cementable all-ceramic crown
to see the fit difference for yourself.
|