Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Community discussion
Implants
Blimey!?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CoolHandLuke" data-source="post: 157388" data-attributes="member: 4850"><p>mohammad what you describe is ball attachments i think, or locators. these are mini implants, they are made to snap together like the domes of a shirt. they were made to be flush with the ginigva and be at slightly differing angles to encourage the snap together. an all on 8 per arch solution. certainly not 4, like the original post, nor yet ground down and undo the snap fit. here: <a href="http://www.cornerstonesmiles.com/Mini-Dental-Implants-Anderson-SC.asp" target="_blank">http://www.cornerstonesmiles.com/Mini-Dental-Implants-Anderson-SC.asp</a></p><p></p><p>a bar with locators ground down would be just as bad. they are precision designed, not to be tampered with. and yes they have plastic caps to allow room to flex.</p><p></p><p>there are reasons we as a community have a large pool of parts to use; for instance a large and wide assortment of denture attachment designs, to accommodate the many kinds of prosthetics that are possible.</p><p></p><p>but when dentists throw curveballs or start playing engineer, we have to go back to the beginning and reteach them that this kind of thinking is no longer necessary. the parts exist. theres no need to made modifications. the array is wide, and its guaranteed that the attachment this dentist wanted was already available. but he chose to grind it and that all by itself shows us that if you fix this case as it is, you encourage the dentist to do this bad practice over and over again.</p><p></p><p>so while a flexible intermediate between the implant and the denture may work, it will not solve the fundamental problem, and worse, this may occur again. more than twice and if even 1 of those patients decides it will be worth the cost of the lawyers, it will be your head on the pike at the end of the day because you knew, and you didnt say anything.</p><p></p><p>a safe fix in this scenario is to fix and give no warranty at all. charge for every reline and remake that this denture will get, if you arent prepared to accept this lackadaisical work then gouge your little heart out until the doc starts asking himself why this work has no warranty. </p><p></p><p>it wasn't right to begin with, it shouldnt get right going out the door. </p><p></p><p>fixing it is more trouble than it is worth. the doc wanted no retention he should have used a non engaging implant. its very simple.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CoolHandLuke, post: 157388, member: 4850"] mohammad what you describe is ball attachments i think, or locators. these are mini implants, they are made to snap together like the domes of a shirt. they were made to be flush with the ginigva and be at slightly differing angles to encourage the snap together. an all on 8 per arch solution. certainly not 4, like the original post, nor yet ground down and undo the snap fit. here: [url]http://www.cornerstonesmiles.com/Mini-Dental-Implants-Anderson-SC.asp[/url] a bar with locators ground down would be just as bad. they are precision designed, not to be tampered with. and yes they have plastic caps to allow room to flex. there are reasons we as a community have a large pool of parts to use; for instance a large and wide assortment of denture attachment designs, to accommodate the many kinds of prosthetics that are possible. but when dentists throw curveballs or start playing engineer, we have to go back to the beginning and reteach them that this kind of thinking is no longer necessary. the parts exist. theres no need to made modifications. the array is wide, and its guaranteed that the attachment this dentist wanted was already available. but he chose to grind it and that all by itself shows us that if you fix this case as it is, you encourage the dentist to do this bad practice over and over again. so while a flexible intermediate between the implant and the denture may work, it will not solve the fundamental problem, and worse, this may occur again. more than twice and if even 1 of those patients decides it will be worth the cost of the lawyers, it will be your head on the pike at the end of the day because you knew, and you didnt say anything. a safe fix in this scenario is to fix and give no warranty at all. charge for every reline and remake that this denture will get, if you arent prepared to accept this lackadaisical work then gouge your little heart out until the doc starts asking himself why this work has no warranty. it wasn't right to begin with, it shouldnt get right going out the door. fixing it is more trouble than it is worth. the doc wanted no retention he should have used a non engaging implant. its very simple. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Community discussion
Implants
Blimey!?
Top
Bottom