Though we were initially skeptical of the benefits of pure zirconia copings, a few recent cases have changed our minds. Specifically, we have had a great deal of success using zirconia copings to provide exceptional implant restorations and posterior bridges. This brings to question which restoration is best. From our experience (without the vested interest of owning any of the 3 systems), Lava seems to be clearly superior. First, the fit is consistently better. Second, the core material is shaded (great for cases with exposed linguals or tight occlusion). Third, it is much more flexible in regards to prep design (fits on almost any prep).
Given the fact that the strength of all 3 systems is identical (same raw material), it appears Lava is the current standard in pure zirconia restorations.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Selim Pamuk // Sep 4, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Cercon has also shaded core material. It’s fit is perfect. Wih it’s new cad software you can even make the wax -up of single crowns on computer. So the system is developping rapidly. Lava has made no change since it is in the market.
2 Plancke Birger // Oct 19, 2005 at 11:53 am
Is there a compare-study on paper between Lava, Procera and Cercon.
If not can i find more of this comparision on internet ?
3 MJ Beauregard // Feb 7, 2006 at 9:56 am
Mr. Pamuk,
Cercon is still a CAM only and requires waxing up and then scan with a Laser, their core material are darker. Procera are starting to offer 3 unit bridges and still offer AlO and Zirconia, still I do not knoe why Procera are still offering AlO when Zirconia is a superior product strenght wise. Lava software has been upgraded and offer an automatic undercut detection, plus a wax knife that will help in the design of supporting the porcelaine and now are offering 5/6 unit bridges.
Regarding studies on Lava, Procera and Cercon ther has been some studies published at the IADR.
Regarding Zirconia Oxide, yes it is widly available however in different purities and sizes, then it has to be processed with Yttrium to stablize it, the amount of Yttrium mixed in with the ZiO will change it’s mechanical properties and coefficient of expansion thus we see different flexural strenght because of the composition of the Yttrium Zirconia.
Because the coefficient of expansion will be different it will change the ability of Zirconia Layering porcelaine to be applied, that is why many companies offer a bonding to be applied on the coping before the veneering procelaine is applied.
4 MJ beauregard // Mar 1, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I would like to know if someone have seen some bond studies of E.max and different Zirconia substructure, I have heard that the bond is not all that consistent and there may be some failures
MJ
You must log in to post a comment.