CoolHandLuke,
Show the documentation of your comments on a Ti bar. Rigid "reduces lifespan of implant"?
Plus your comments on the Trefoil? I believe you need to attend a course before making judgement...
With the amount of A04's I have fabricated. So far, none would have been a candidate for the Trefoil.
Its a limited option.
A proper Ti bar in the proper application doesn't likely reduce the lifespan of an implant, a
bad ti bar on the other hand does, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up, I recommend you consult Google. The question at hand is how we are getting the data to create the bar, and how reliable that is... if we're being honest with ourselves.
so why make a rigid bar once integration is complete? why put stress on 4 implants using a full rigid structure like zirconia and risk stress on the bone? why, because its cheap, likely won't break and there's golf to be done.
ive had the nobel rep for my area speak well of no one.
they'll tell you to your face, this is a "60% of the time it works every time" situation and thats the way they want it. trefoil uses a complex system that is not even capable of being planned by nobel's implant clinician! you HAVE to buy all the koolaid before they let you play the game..buying the Optimet scanner is the only way to make a bar with them you can never buy just the screws or copings a kit, and assemble it yourself. People have to buy third party MUA copings or mill the interface into the zirconia which renders all warranties void.
its very simple, its a non-guided surgery for JUST dentate patients with a certain kind of remaining bone, and a certain shape of arch. everyone else cant have this 'cheaper' bar, they have to have custom ones made the traditional way.
now ask me what happens when one of the 3 implants fail. go on ask me.
the whole thing has to come out for a new full custom one because there is no ability to keep all on 2 working, and no system for adding a 4th implant (in this case a new 3rd) so if anything has to be done to it, you haven't saved any money, you likely had to spend much more.
ironically do you know what it was like to get this information from the rep? easy as pie actually. most of it was volunteered.
if you make a softer bar, one with some ability to flex under load, then you transfer the stress of the bite not unto the implant but absorbed within the bar. the implants now fail far less because there is less stress on the implant. It's a question of physics and load transfer.
trinia is ONE such material in a sea of other resins and composites and such. its got its own downsides. its not the endgame, its just the path to it. progress.The 5 year follow up study published a couple years ago now, it seems to be standing the test of time.
let me give you some insight into what i'm working on as a tech developer trying to modernize our industry: we've come across a handful of nifty new resins and composites and have made items and then taken them to a university to have them broken. We have seen whats good and whats bad from a material science standpoint. now we are engineering the process to customize every case and also make it simple to manufacture for the average user.
At the end of the day this would be beneficial to the patient to help even average level GP and surgeon reach a better success rate both for success in implantology and success in prosthetics. We see what works, by seeing what fails... and when and how...
