System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives

Details System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives

1999-08-10

2002-05-14

Manahan, Todd E. (Department: 3732)

Dentistry

Apparatus

Having condition sensor to transmit signal to regulate...

C433S223000, C264S016000

Reexamination Certificate

active

06386865

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to indirect dental restorations. Specifically, the present invention relates to a system for fabrication of indirect restoratives utilizing polymer composites which may be performed during a single dental office visit or in the dental lab by a technician.
2. Brief Description of Related Technology
For centuries, restorative dentistry has been performed utilizing the lost wax technique wherein gypsum dies created from impressions are made of the prepared teeth. Gypsum-containing setting materials require a certain amount of time to set up. Setting time of the restoration materials can be decreased, but at the peril of accuracy problems. Gypsum models also require mounting on articulators, utilizing plaster, requiring a certain amount of setting time to mount a model. Thus, regardless of the impression material used, the setting time required by gypsum-containing materials requires the dentist to make a second appointment with a patient to affix a permanent restoration.
An other problem with using gypsum-containing dies is that certain restorative materials tend to adhere to the gypsum, regardless of the separator material applied to the dies One of the reasons for this is that although separator materials may be prepared which work for most materials, it is undesirable to coat margin areas on the die with the separator material for fear of creating a space in this area in the finished restoration. Thus, technicians have expected to have die models chipped at the margins during fabrication This dilemma has been solved by duplicating the master model for fabrication purposes, necessitating an additional step which may create more error in material shrinkage/expansion parameters. Each time a master model is duplicated, accuracy is at risk. Another problem with duplicating the master model is that the master model must still be used to fit the restoration, creating the risk of wearing and chipping of the master model. Regardless of these problems, this technique, which requires at least two patient office visits, is still being utilized in the dental industry.
One alternative to gypsum dies has been to utilize a light-curable polymer composite inlay fabricated in the patient's mouth, which is then removed from the mouth for final curing and then cemented in the patient's mouth, during a single office visit. Problems with such a system include the fact that the fabrication field is not always free of saliva and blood, which can interfere with the setting of the composite. Another problem with such a system is that the occlusion may be overly high because the patient is not able to bite into the setting composite to form a functionally generated path-type restoration. Contacts are also a problem with such a system. The contacts must sometimes be added after removal of the composite from the mouth because, for example, the stainless steel band on a retainer may interfere and create an open interproximal contact.
Furthermore, even if the fabrication field is dry (free of blood and saliva), the contact adequate, and the occlusion easy to manipulate, the composite utilized in such a system may have a tendency to lock into slight undercuts in a prepared tooth. If the light-curable composite set inlay hardens in such tooth undercuts, the restoration cannot be removed for final curing. Also, since the composite in the proximal box area is tacky and soft because light cannot reach it, removal of the restoration may result in breakage or deformation of the composite pattern, particularly in large, complex restorations. One way in which this problem has been solved is to place the tip of a paper clip in the central pit area of the restoration so that the clip sticks like a sprue pin in a wax pattern, and thus provides a way to vertically remove the restoration.
Further problems with such a system include the formation of an overly dry surface after light cure outside of the mouth, inadequate cementation of the finished restoration onto the dentin and enamel bonded prepared tooth, and the previous lack of chair-side sand blasting technology,
The desire for chair-side availability of restorations also has led to the development of milling machines. An early machine included a copy-key device. The system included taking a pre-operative impression, preparing the tooth, and taking a post-operative impression with a stiff material. A stylus of the milling machine followed the contour of the intaglio surface of the post-operative impression, which was transferred to a milling arm, which cut the shape into a block of feldspathic porcelain. The occlusion was cut into the opposite side of the restoration by following the occlusal morphology of the poured pre-operative model with the stylus. Problems with this system included the difficulty in keeping the impression immobile on a pedestal while the stylus tracked over the surface of the impression. Furthermore, the cost of the milling machine prohibited many dental offices from utilizing this system.
Improved milling machines utilizing CAD/CAM technology are available, but are considered cost-prohibitive by many. Also, polishing is required for any porcelain restoration. A further draw-back is the monochromaticity of the porcelain.
The monochromaticity problem may be solved by replacing porcelain restoratives with those made from a variety of polymer composites. A current trend is to prepare permanent dental restorations from composite materials made by free-radical polymerization of methacrylate functionalized monomers or oligomers. The formed highly viscous polymerization products typically are cured by light, (e.g., by a visible light source) or by heat, or by a “dual” light- and self-cure. It also is known that traditional light-cure, self-cure and “dual” light/self cure composites may be further polymerized by exposure to heat.
In some instances, the presence of oxygen has been found to inhibit the light curing of free-radical initiated chemical systems. This oxygen inhibition is noticed on a cured surface as occlusal haziness or tackiness. To avoid these aesthetic flaws, some processes, such as the one disclosed in Yarovesky et al., U.S. Pat. No 5,000,687 teach light cure under an inert nitrogen atmosphere. Dual cure (i.e., light/heat) has been found to impart good post-cure strength to the composite product.
Conventional processes for fabricating restorative dental implants have proven quite expensive, and time consuming. Currently, dentists must send single and multiple unit restorations to off-site dental laboratories. These laboratories are the only source capable of manufacturing dental implants having strength, color, and other aesthetic qualities demanded by patients and their dentists.
Currently, the overall process to provide a patient with a final, permanent restoration requires the patient to make at least two separate dental visits. In the first visit, the dentist typically prepares a subject tooth, prepares and cements a temporary restoration, removes excess cement, checks for temporary occlusion, and prepares a final impression which is then sent to a dental laboratory where a permanent restoration is made. In the second visit, the dentist removes the temporary restoration, removes residual temporary cement, trial-fits the lab-fabricated permanent restoration, checks margins and occlusal harmony with opposing teeth, and then cements the permanent restoration.
There are numerous disadvantages of the current multiple-visit procedure. One notable disadvantage is the inconvenience to the patient in having to undergo an interim procedure where a temporary restoration is affixed and, subsequently, undergoing another procedure to remove the temporary restoration and then to affix the permanent restoration. Each visit may require anesthetizing. Furthermore, each visit requires the patient to take time away from work or home. Another disadvantage of the current multiple-visit procedure is the added cost to the dentist, such as the cost in foregoin

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and System for fabrication of indirect dental restoratives will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2837081