![]() ![]() Material selection was related to type of restoration. ![]() The biocopy project seemed to be the best tool to obtain func- tionalized surfaces and keep unchanged gnathological data. The only drawback could be the sub- gingival placement of the margins compared with the supra/juxta gingival margins, since more time was required for the impression taking as well as the adhesive luting phase. ![]() Furthermore, a better acceptance level for the impression procedure has shown by the patients. The operator-dependent errors are minimized compared to the conventional prosthetic protocol. The CEREC system has shown many positive aspects that make easier, faster and less expensive the prosthetic workflow. Clinical procedures (tooth preparation, impression taking, adhesive luting), operational compo- nents and their capabilities as well as restorative materials used with CEREC 3 chairside system were reported. Benefits and limitations of this technology compared with the conventional prosthetic work- flow were also highlighted and discussed. The aim of this paper was to describe the CEREC 3 chairside system, providing the clinicians a detailed analy- sis of the whole digital workflow. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |