xmind_en_png/W301 UNIT 16_ COVENANTS.png

[User] <image>

[User] Identify and output all the nodes and their interconnections in this mind map image.

[Assistant] <s_map><s_node-0><s_text>W301 UNIT 16: COVENANTS</s_text><s_node-1><s_text>Definition</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>Promise contained in a deed</s_text><sep/><s_text>Any promise about the use of land even if not in a deed</s_text><sep/><s_text>Positive (incurs cost) or negative (restrictive)</s_text><sep/><s_text>Usually imposed on sale of part of property</s_text></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>Enforcement: original parties</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>Original parties</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>have privity of contract</s_text><sep/><s_text>normal rules of contract law apply</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Can third parties enforce the covenant?</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>s56(1) LPA 1925</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Can enforce if covenant purports to be made with the third party</s_text><sep/><s_text>Not sufficient for covenant to be worded to benefit the third party</s_text><sep/><s_text>White v Bijou Mansions Ltd [1937] Ch 610</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Applies to contracts entered into from 11 May 2000</s_text><sep/><s_text>Limb 1. Covenant expressly provides that third party may enforce it</s_text><sep/><s_text>OR Limb 2. Covenant purports to confer benefit on third party</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>but not if it is clear that parties to the covenant did not intend third parties to be able to enforce it</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4></s_node-3></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>Breach of covenant</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>Possible remedies</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>Damages</s_text><sep/><s_text>Interim injunction</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Pending full hearing</s_text><sep/><s_text>Possibility may have to pay damages if action fails</s_text><sep/><s_text>Delay may enable defence of laches, acquiescence or estoppel</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Mandatory injunction</s_text><sep/><s_text>Damages in lieu of injunction</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1985] 1 Ch 287</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>injury to claimants right is small</s_text><sep/><s_text>and capable of being estimated in money</s_text><sep/><s_text>can be adequately compensated by small money payment</s_text><sep/><s_text>would be oppressive to defendant to grant injunction</s_text></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>Will be based on figure paid for release of covenant</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Cases</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>MI refused as waste of houses</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Wakeham v Wood (1982) 43 PCR 40</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>MI granted as flagrant breach</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Discharge of covenant</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>s84 LPA 1925</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Lands Tribunal</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Changes in character of neighbourhood renders obsolete</s_text><sep/><s_text>impedes reasonable use of land</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>and no practical benefit</s_text><sep/><s_text>or contrary to public interest</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>persons benefiting have agreed expressly or impliedly</s_text><sep/><s_text>persons benefiting will not be injured</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Re Martins Application (1988) 57 PCR 119</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>planning permission is persausive not conclusive factor</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>May seek express release by deed from covenantee</s_text><sep/><s_text>Would be extinguished by common ownership</s_text></s_node-3></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>Enforcement: successors in title</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>If burden of covenant has passed in equity, equitable rules on passing of benefit have to be applied</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>If original covenantor is being sued, legal rules for benefit may be applied</s_text><sep/><s_text>If defendant is successor in title to original covenantor, equitable rules should be applied to benefit</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Common law rules</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>The benefit</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Annexation</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>1. Covenant must touch and concern the land of the covenantee</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>must affect mode of occupation or value</s_text><sep/><s_text>Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>AND 2. Both parties must have legal estate</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Common law: purchaser must have same estate as original covenantee</s_text><sep/><s_text>Position altered by s78 LPA 1925</s_text><sep/><s_text>Now applies to any legal estate derived from the covenantee</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>AND 3. Original parties intended benefit to run with the land</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>May be express annexation</s_text><sep/><s_text>Or statutory annexation</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>s78 LPA 1925</s_text><s_relation>s78 LPA 1925 applied</s_relation></s_node-7></s_node-6></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>Assignment</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>If requirement 3 not met...</s_text><sep/><s_text>Can be expressly assigned to new purchaser</s_text><sep/><s_text>Must take place at time of transfer of land</s_text><sep/><s_text>Must take place each time land passes to new owner</s_text><sep/><s_text>s136 LPA 1925 may apply</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>The burden</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>General rule: Burden does not run with the land</s_text><sep/><s_text>Indemnity covenants</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Covenantee can still sue original covenantors</s_text><sep/><s_text>Original covenantors may have required indemnity covenants from purchasers</s_text><sep/><s_text>Chain may be broken if one dies, or has no indemnity covenant</s_text></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>Principle of mutual benefit and burden</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Halsall v Brizell</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Cannot take benefit of a deed without the burden</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>Rhone v Stephens</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Burden must be related to the benefit</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>Thamesmead Town Ltd v Allotey</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Rules of equity</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>The benefit</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Must touch and concern the land</s_text><sep/><s_text>May pass by annexation ...</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Express annexation</s_text><sep/><s_text>Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Break in the chain of express assignments</s_text><sep/><s_text>s78 LPA 1925 applied</s_text><s_relation>s78 LPA 1925</s_relation><s_node-7><s_text>had the effect of annexing the benefit of the covenant to every part of the land</s_text></s_node-7><sep/><s_text>Now very easy to show annexation</s_text><sep/><s_text>Criticised</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>Statute was meant to consolidate not change the law</s_text><sep/><s_text>Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004] 1 WLR 2409</s_text><s_node-8><s_text>Land receiving benefit had to be mentioned or defined in document creating covenant</s_text><sep/><s_text>Limits Federated Homes decision</s_text></s_node-8><sep/><s_text>HoL could overturn</s_text></s_node-7></s_node-6></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>... or assignment</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Little reason to consider while Federated Homes decision remains</s_text><sep/><s_text>Parties may still preclude annexation by express wording</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Roake v Chadha</s_text></s_node-6></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>... or by Building Scheme</s_text><s_relation>Building Schemes</s_relation></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>The burden</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Negative covenants</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Burden of covenant does not run in equity. Unless, ...</s_text><sep/><s_text>1. Covenant is restrictive</s_text><sep/><s_text>2. Parties intended covenant to run with land</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Express annexation</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>wording of covenant</s_text></s_node-7><sep/><s_text>OR s79 LPA 1925</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>unless expressly states otherwise</s_text></s_node-7></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>3. Touches and concerns the land</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Covenantee must have owned land benefiting from covenant at the time it was entered into</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>London CC v Allen</s_text><sep/><s_text>purchaser of last plot takes free</s_text><s_node-8><s_text>Building Schemes</s_text><s_relation>Building Schemes</s_relation></s_node-8></s_node-7></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>4. Purchaser with notice buys subject to covenant</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Tulk v Moxhay (1848)2 Ph 774</s_text><sep/><s_text>Class D(ii) land charge in LCR - unregistered land</s_text><sep/><s_text>Notice on charges register - registered land</s_text></s_node-6></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>Positive covenants</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Positive covenants do not run in equity</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Austerberry v Corporation of Oldham (1885) 29 ChD 750</s_text><sep/><s_text>Would be equivalent to requiring performance of contract although not party to it</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310</s_text></s_node-7></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Building Schemes</s_text><s_relation>... or by Building Scheme<sep/>Building Schemes</s_relation><s_node-4><s_text>Restrictive covenants only</s_text><sep/><s_text>Allows benefit and burden to run with land</s_text><sep/><s_text>Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>1. Claimant and defendants titles derived from common vendor</s_text><sep/><s_text>2. Land had been set out in plots before sale</s_text><sep/><s_text>3. Restrictions had been intended to benefit each of purchasers</s_text><sep/><s_text>4. Lots purchased on understanding that restrictions were to benefit all lots</s_text><sep/><s_text>Relaxed in later cases</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Ltd [1965]</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>not divided into lots</s_text></s_node-7><sep/><s_text>Re Dolphins Conveyance [1970]</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>simply require evidence of common intention</s_text></s_node-7></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4></s_node-3></s_node-2></s_node-1></s_node-0></s_map>


[User] <image>

[User] Convert this mind map into a clear structured data format.

[Assistant] <s_map><s_node-0><s_text>10 UNITS ON PENDINGS</s_text><s_node-1><s_text>ITEM # 1 AND # 2</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 8, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO REPAIR ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 5, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>RR # 1531</s_text><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>REFERENCE # PEPSI/IR/12/NOV/5-5</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED NOVEMBER 8, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>INCOMING FINDINGS : CORRUPTED APPLICATION</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 5, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER</s_text><sep/><s_text>FINDINGS : DAMAGED DIGITIZER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECOMMENDATION : RESET DEVICE AND REPROGRAM</s_text><sep/><s_text>SEND QUOTATION</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>DECEMBER 18, 2012</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>NO REPLY SINCE DECEMBER 25, 2013</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>SEND FOLLOW UP LETTER</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>DECEMBER 26, 2012</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>WILEY CO REPLY JANUARY 2, 2013</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>LOUIE REPLY JANUARY 4, 2013</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Requesting to Wave the labor fee</s_text><s_relation>JHOAN REPLY JANUARY 7, 2013 (REPLY)</s_relation></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN REPLY JANUARY 7, 2013</s_text><s_relation>Requesting to Wave the labor fee (REPLY)</s_relation><s_node-3><s_text>HRF disapproved the Wave labor cost request</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>No Reply up to date</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>KIT # 071</s_text><sep/><s_text>PDA # 3CC8040FKN</s_text><sep/><s_text>PRINTER # MQG000318UN09</s_text><sep/><s_text>OVER WARRANTY</s_text><sep/><s_text>PROBLEM REPORTED : CALIBRATION PROBLEM</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO QA ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 29, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>NEED : DIGITIZER</s_text><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN SENT INFO MEMO MARCH 5, 2013</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>No reply up to date</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN SENT ANOTHER LETTER APRIL 2, 2013</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>No reply up to date</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>NO ACTION ON PCPPIs PART</s_text><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>REFERENCE # PEPSI/IR/12/NOV/5-6</s_text><sep/><s_text>KIT # 072</s_text><sep/><s_text>PDA # 3CC7500B3J</s_text><sep/><s_text>PRINTER # MBA000190US11</s_text><sep/><s_text>OVER WARRANTY</s_text><sep/><s_text>PROBLEM REPORTED : CALIBRATION PROBLEM</s_text><sep/><s_text>DATE OF INCIDENT</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>OCTOBER 30, 2013</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED :</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED FROM KIT CONTROLLER</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO STOCK CONTROLLER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO KIT CONTROLLER</s_text></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>ITEM # 3</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 27, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 29, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 27, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : NOVEMBER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RR # 1559</s_text><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>REFERENCE # PCPPI12003</s_text><sep/><s_text>KIT # 077</s_text><sep/><s_text>PDA # 3CC9390BMR</s_text><sep/><s_text>PRINTER # MBB000058UN12</s_text><sep/><s_text>OVER WARRANTY</s_text><sep/><s_text>PROBLEM REPORTED : CORRUPTED APPLICATION</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO QA ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>INCOMING FINDING : PDA NOT CHARGING</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO REPAIR ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>DATE OF INCIDENT</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>SEPTEMBER 30, 2012</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>FINDINGS : DEFECTIVE CHARGER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : DECEMBER 7, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>NEED : ----</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : DECEMBER 7, 2012</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO REPAIR</s_text><sep/><s_text>ACTION TAKEN : CHARGED AND OK</s_text><sep/><s_text>SEND QUOTATION</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>DECEMBER 18, 2012</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>NO REPLY SINCE DECEMBER 25, 2012</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>SEND FOLLOW UP LETTER</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>DECEMBER 26, 2012</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>WILEY CO REPLY JANUARY 2, 2013</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>LOUIE REPLY JANUARY 4, 2013</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Requesting to Wave the labor fee</s_text><s_relation>JHOAN REPLY JANUARY 7, 2013 (REPLY)</s_relation></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN REPLY JANUARY 7, 2013</s_text><s_relation>Requesting to Wave the labor fee (REPLY)</s_relation><s_node-3><s_text>HRF disapproved the Wave labor cost request</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>No Reply up to date</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN SENT INFO MEMO MARCH 5, 2013</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>No reply up to date</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>JHOAN SENT ANOTHER LETTER APRIL 2, 2013</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>No reply up to date</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>NO ACTION ON PCPPIs PART</s_text></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>ITEM # 4 TO 8</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 14, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 14, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>-----</s_text><sep/><s_text>-----</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 14, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>RR # 1626</s_text><sep/><s_text>..</s_text><sep/><s_text>REFERENCE # PCPPI12009</s_text><sep/><s_text>DATE OF INCIDENT</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>DECEMBER 26, 2012</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>KIT # 083</s_text><sep/><s_text>PDA # 3CC9390B6K</s_text><sep/><s_text>PRINTER # MBA000080US10</s_text><sep/><s_text>OVER WARRANTY</s_text><sep/><s_text>PROBLEM REPORTED : DEFECTIVE PRINTER</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO REPAIR ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>INCOMING FINDINGS : DEFECTIVE PRINTER COVER, PRINTER BATTERY ALMOST DRAIN</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECOMMENDATION : REPLACE DEFFECTIVE PARTS</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO JOB ORDER</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED : JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text><sep/><s_text>ACTION TAKEN : REPAIR CHARGER AND RECHARGE</s_text><sep/><s_text>RECEIVED FROM REPAIR</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>JANUARY 15, 2013</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO STOCK CONTROLLER</s_text></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>REPAIR / JOB ORDER</s_text><sep/><s_text>REPORTED</s_text><sep/><s_text>IR RECEIVING</s_text><sep/><s_text>KIT CONTROLLER</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWED TO KIT CONTROLLER</s_text><sep/><s_text>QA ASSESMENT</s_text><sep/><s_text>FORWARDED TO KIT C.</s_text></s_node-1></s_node-0></s_map>


[User] <image>

[User] Present the information from the mind map in the image in the form of tree-structured data.

[Assistant] <s_map><s_node-0><s_text>Ceramic</s_text><s_node-1><s_text>Traditional</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>Made of</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>Kaolin, silica, feldspar, glasses</s_text><sep/><s_text>more feldspar, less kaolin</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>more translucent ceramic</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Fusing temperature</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>High</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>1300-1400 C</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Low</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>850 - 1100 C</s_text><sep/><s_text>More commonly used</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Fusion process, compaction firing</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>1. Aqueous plastic mass of particles are compacted as much as possible.</s_text><sep/><s_text>2. Vibrated to settle particles bring excess water to surface</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>reduces shrinkage</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>3. Fired under vacuum.</s_text></s_node-3><sep/><s_text>Properties</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>Aesthetic</s_text><sep/><s_text>variety of shades levels of translucency</s_text><sep/><s_text>rigid, hard</s_text><sep/><s_text>brittle</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>prone to #</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>can be reduced by</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>rounded internal line angles</s_text><sep/><s_text>smooth shoulder margin</s_text></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>abrasive potential</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>reduced by</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>glazing/ polishing</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>good thermal insulator</s_text><sep/><s_text>resistant to chemical attack</s_text></s_node-3></s_node-2><sep/><s_text>Modern</s_text><s_node-2><s_text>Alumina inserts/ aluminous porcelain</s_text><s_node-3><s_text>properties</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Aims to combat brittleness</s_text><sep/><s_text>uses core of alumina (hard/opaque)</s_text><sep/><s_text>40 alumina content</s_text><sep/><s_text>as "crack stopper"</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Sintered alumina core ceramics</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Process</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>1. Duplicate die (alumina slip prepared by painting alumina powder+water onto die)</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>0.5mm thickness</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>2. Sintered at 1120 C for 2 Hours</s_text><sep/><s_text>3. Core painted with slurry of glass powder, then fired at 1100 C</s_text><sep/><s_text>4. Microblasted</s_text><sep/><s_text>5. Refired at 960 C</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>to ensure proper infiltration of alumina with glass</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>6. traditional layering</s_text></s_node-5><sep/><s_text>eg Inceram</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Various cores can be used</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>Spinell</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>more translucent but weaker</s_text><s_node-8><s_text>for anterior crowns</s_text></s_node-8></s_node-7><sep/><s_text>Alumina</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>standard core</s_text></s_node-7><sep/><s_text>Zirconia</s_text><s_node-7><s_text>higher flex strength</s_text><s_node-8><s_text>for bridges</s_text></s_node-8></s_node-7></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Injection molded Pressed</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>wax pattern/ epoxy die</s_text><sep/><s_text>Lost wax technique</s_text><sep/><s_text>Empress IPS</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>Molten feldspatic glass is pressed into preformed mould</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>using high temperature investment material wax pattern</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>Forced into mould under pressure</s_text><sep/><s_text>Controlled cooling</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>allows reinforcing leucite crystal to form</s_text></s_node-6><sep/><s_text>Layered technique/ cut back full size crown</s_text><s_node-6><s_text>layered onto or surface stained</s_text></s_node-6></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Cast glass ceramics</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Lost wax technique</s_text><sep/><s_text>phosphate bonded investment</s_text><sep/><s_text>wax burn out at 950 C</s_text><sep/><s_text>Molten ceramic cast centrigually into mould at 1350C</s_text><sep/><s_text>Oven-heated 1075 C for 10hours</s_text><sep/><s_text>Colour matching</s_text><s_node-5><s_text>apply tinted porcelain</s_text></s_node-5></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>CAD-CAM</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>Record optical impression from restoration with computer</s_text><sep/><s_text>Monolithic ceramic block is milled</s_text></s_node-4><sep/><s_text>Veneers</s_text><s_node-4><s_text>0.5- 0.8mm thick</s_text><sep/><s_text>Feldspatic porcelain, glass ceramic, pressed or CAD-CAM techniques used</s_text><sep/><s_text>Bonding, Hydrofluoric acid treated, silanated, composite luting cements</s_text></s_node-4></s_node-3></s_node-2></s_node-1></s_node-0></s_map>