cronicaskaterbinas

A rule of thumb would be 2mm. We can do it closer than conventionals because of its smaller diameter. The basic principle is to ensure optimal living tissue around the implant to maximize healing potential. I think you should have a very rational way of doing things and that should keep a dentist within the limitations of any form of treatment modality. We should stop looking at minis emotionally but scientifically. I say emotionally because many criticisms are based on the suspicion that the dentist cannot do conventionals... therefore resort to enter into the game via minis. While true sometimes, what is wrong with that?..... and what do you say to a dentist who is adept at using both and yet still use minis successfully and rationally in situations where conventionals just will not do?? We should move on and just accept that dental implants come in all forms of shapes and sizes and materials etc. etc. and as professionals and scientists, use them based on principles and common sense

In upper anterior cases where the use of conventionals usually result in black triangles due to its large size, I am increasingly convinced that minis should be the treatment of choice because their narrow diameters allow plenty of nutrients for the inter-implant tissues so much so that initial black triangles rapidly get filled up with living tissue, and aesthetically to boot. BLACK TRIANGLES ! A month or so later, they have disappeared. This particular patient was a total dento-phobic ++++. He had never seen a dentist for years. He called me on the phone and outlined his fears. His first visit, all I did was talk to him, took an impression and an OPG. If I were to offer to do conventionals only, I gravely doubt that I would ever see him again. With minis, I had great confidence to treat this patient with the minimal of trauma and pain and delivered his teeth fast and in a very satisfactory way. He completed a questionnaire in which he said that he was very happy with the results exce