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

We placed in the upper anterior implants carefully and everything healed uneventfully.  However, when the patient returned, he insisted that we remove them, the reason being that, "He just could not accept them as part of his mouth and body!" This was a realization that he had only after he had the implants placed. After numerous attempts to persuade him otherwise, we finally accepted the fact that the patient for some reason beyond us, cannot accept the dental implants as part of his mouth and body. By then, the implants were fully osseointegrated and ready for harvesting and prosthodontics.  So near, yet so far!!!! Rest assured, we tried our level utmost to convince the patient how simple the prosthodontics were and how much he already paid and what a boon a set of fixed teeth as compared to his dentures were. With all the preliminary exercises in persuasion and explainations done conscientiously, we got the patient to sign a carefully worded consent form indemnifying us fr

This patient's lower right molar had to be removed due to severe chronic periodontitis and loss of supporting bone. After one month, after the mucosa had overgrown the socket a bit, we inserted the implant the following way:- We drilled right through the mucosa in a flapless procedure until we hit paydirt.... I mean bone.  Unfortunately the first drill went right into the inferior dental canal and there was a gush of blood. The bleeding was stopped with a piece of spongostan and biting on a piece of gauze. After another 2 months, we went in again flapless again, this time more carefully in avoiding penetration of the inferior dental canal. After tapping the osteotomy and trying in the implant to its full depth, we removed it and made a straight incision along the direction of the alveolar crest. After lifting the flap bucally and lingually, we curetted the socket thoroughly to gain a raw fresh bony surface.  We then removed any loose granulation tissue attached to the flaps, screwe

IN ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION IN AN OSSEONEWS DISCUSSION http://www.osseonews.com/can-i-avoid-a-maxillary-sinus-lift/ http://smalldentalimplants.blogspot.com/2010/12/anatomical-positioning-of-minis-to.html K. F. Chow BDS., FDSRCS   May 7, 2010 at 10:43 am Dear Dr A, I guess you are another fictitious Doc with an alphabet. Nevertheless, it is an interesting question. If you do not want to do a sinus lift, any reason will do though it might not be a good one. I myself once did not want to do it because I hated having to make a large opening into the sinus! And if I can avoid it, I did. So I tried crestal lifts invented by Summers. Works, but often found myself having to spend more time than if I just did a lateral window which is more sure and definitive. There are various ingenious ways nowadays, the latest seem to be the “hatch” technique with a special off centre drill. However, if you want to avoid all these, there are several ways to avoid a sinus lift altogether:- * Do a convent

When this gentleman who is generally healthy and a smoker to boot requested for help, it was quite a challenge. He could not eat properly because the upper denture tended to fall down and he had only a few lower front teeth left. Cost was not a big issue but he still preferred some savings if possible.  The options were presented and the choices were between standard implants or minis or a mix of them with the accompanying pros and cons. We started in December 2009 and completed in December 2010. It could have been earlier except that the gentleman had the lowers done first and tried it out for several months before he made the judgement call that minis do work and requested for minis for the uppers as well.  With all the pros and cons discussed and informed consent obtained, we proceeded to place in 12 minis or MOSTDIs as I like to call them. One was lost from the incisor area basically because the anterior ridge was extremely narrow. Nevertheless, 10 was enough. We cemented BUDs( Bri