Re: Post Crowns

Amatus Cremona <Nicola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I was pointing out that holding a bur up against a radiograph on a computer
> monitor does not tell me anything about length. The image on the screen is
> typically magnified at leapt 15 times.

Oh, yes, I forgot that you're informatized. Then if you wanted to guage
that length, you'd either take a photo with the peezo in the canal, take
a standardized photo of a peezo by itself and measure it to use as a
guage, or use your measuring tool to tell you these lengths. But even
then, you have to use _something_ to standardize your measuring tool.

The point I was trying to make is that if you use a small-ish peezo to
be sure not to perf the root, and you dig down from the _canal_ entrance
(as opposed to the _tooth_ entrance) till the working part is just
buried in the canal but no more, you're supposed to end up with a (cast)
post space of sufficient length for most if not all PM's and molars.
That's what the Peezo was designed for, as I understand it. If by doing
this you'd not be able to leave at least six mm of apical seal, you're
supposed to forget using a cast post and go with the pre-fabs, because
you have to cheat and make a shorter canal prep. The patient is supposed
to be duly informed of this compromise. (I use Fiber Posts as do
yourself).

After reading this, I know you're going to say that the Pipe is as far
into the patatoe patch as he can get, but that's what I was told by the
Prostho up our way, and I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand.

I'd be interested to hear what this sounds like to an (often)
anti-posting, pulp-space-core-promoting CEREC monger such as yourself.

Thanks
SP
--
Take out the TRAASH to reply
.