Unfortunately, a surprising number of manufacturers don't take this into account when formulating ceramics for crowns.
It's quite disconcerting to find yourself in a night club, unable to smile or talk properly because of the huge black gap in your teeth...
I don't think it's a huge deal though. I have had my false tooth for nearly 5 years and never found out it looks different under UV until now.
Sounds like a cool way to embed secret messages on your teeth.
https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/dent...
And the amusing inverse! https://m.imgur.com/gallery/lcmSI
So this is a classic disruptive technology, in a market where people pay out-of-pocket(if not in the US , in many other places). so why haven't this disrupted the old way?
He breaks out so much new tech when I visit my friends and family think I'm crazy for going to him. I refer to him as my mad scientist.
Nowadays they just shine a near-UV light on them for a couple seconds and it's done.
Are people still getting braces glued on is it going the way of the molded clear plastic things? They were the hot new item being advertised back when I was getting my teeth fixed.
I have one of them for my retainer, which is quite a bit nicer than the plastic and wire retainers of old.
Of course, this was like 13 years ago, so I'm sure times have changed.
Yeah, I'm not sure about braces now. I do hear ads for that invisalign product, or something close to that. So that's probably what's being used now.
Would've loved to do without the wires popping out and stabbing me in the mouth, it wasn't a favorite part of my childhood. So much orthodontia.
Would be great if you're doing it as an adult, I wonder how most kids would do with the "must wear 22 hours a day" part. If I could've taken my braces out I probably would have. OTOH I had a couple other removable mouth appliances and managed with those, so maybe it's just because braces are awful that I wanted to get rid of them.
My takeaway is that teeth are very stubborn and don't like to be moved quickly. And that once moved, they really want to go back to the way they were. There is a lot of new tech, but you've gotta find the right ortho. I shopped around until I found a forward-thinking one who was willing to try new things, and got spectacular results within a reasonable timeframe.
I checked out their site https://fastbraces.com/ but it looks like it caters to dentists. It's about 50% of the price at least that's comparing a quote from an orthodontist. I just don't know enough about it.
That's my belief too. I had my metal braces removed a year ago, I have to wear retainers overnight, and I'm still finding the retainers quite a tight fit when I first put them in, especially if it's later in the evening than normal. My orthodontist says this indicates there's still some movement of the teeth.
If they are, someone should hold their hands and reassure them, or something. I haven't been to a dentist in about 6 years, mostly due to procrastination - though I can afford to have work done, I don't have coverage for it.
I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about going if I thought they could actually fix something, instead of announcing that they want to drill more holes in my teeth every time.
If you have a lot of cavities to fill, I would advise knocking it all out outside the country. I went to a dentist in Medellin that did an amazing job, basic cosmetic and restorative work on my whole mouth plus the plane tickets and a 21 day stay in an AirBnB totaled out cheaper than my Atlanta dentist wanted for one inlay.
And there are a tonne of other things your dentist will be checking each time. Paying ~$100 a year is a small price to pay to keep your teeth healthy.
Probably you're not at that point, but please go and check.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2017/04/25/out-o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_implant
There was a CT scan of my mouth, and then a bolt was selected and a ceramic tooth created that would accurately fill the gap. It works just like a real tooth, except it is slightly chunkier (but it's chunkier in the direction that points inside my mouth, so I'm the only person who can tell).
It felt pretty high-tech to me, although the article mentions that the first titanium dental implant was placed in 1965.
The best bet we have to replace that are root-analogue implants [1] - essentially a physical 3D-printed copy of the whole tooth, including roots. Unfortunately information is scarce (as you can see in that wikipedia page), it's not even mentioned in the main 'Dental implant' article. There is a single dentist in the entire world [2] actively offering these implants, and going at it for 20 years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_analogue_dental_implant
We tried very hard to get even one sentence into the Wikipedia article, to no avail. The editors insist on secondary sources of information (articles in magazines or newspapers), which apparently must be in English. Sadly, all news pieces so far have been in German.
We were equally unsuccessful in raising interest among popular science journalists.
Here's one paper I found while reading around about the technology (no idea what sort of credibility JOADMS has):
http://www.joadms.org/download/article/149/19102016_27/14762...
The founders are medical doctors, one a maxillofacial surgeon, the other a famous heart surgeon, both associated with the Medical University of Vienna.
Lastly - you'll have to take this on trust - I have a BioImplant. It's a front incisor (one of the worst places to get an implant). That video on the website front page - that's me! I've had it for about 5 years, and it's faultless.
1) What sort of guarantee does BioImplant offer?
2) If an implant fails can it be removed and replaced?
3) When do they expect FDA approval? Why haven't they received it after over a decade?
4) Why is it only a single tooth procedure? Have they never tried to replace a row of teeth?
5) Who are the primary customers to date (how many and where from)? If these are foreigners traveling for the procedure, why don't they offer details on how to go about scheduling the trip/travel and the procedure/stay?
2) The first few weeks are critical: if the implant fails (ie. falls out), the procedure can be attempted again. If it's a complete failure, no damage was done, and one can opt instead for a regular screw-type implant.
3) FDA approval: other zirconia implants are already approved. A few years back, we got quite far with the BioImplant application, but other (medically unrelated) issues intervened, which I can't really discuss here. However, I agree: it's a top priority.
4) It's currently only medically proven for single tooth replacement. Research and trials are needed for multiple teeth.
5) The patients come from all over the world, wealthy and otherwise. I don't know exact numbers; I seem to recall it's in the hundreds, but you should phone to be sure. The other details: schedule, procedure, are all sorted out by telephone or email. Usually an X-ray or CT scan is the first thing to send.
I think the reason is that there are too many implant companies, so competition is fierce. The editors are rightly suspicious of product placement or promotion. However, where there is legitimate innovation in an otherwise stultified field, it's important to draw attention to new developments. Perhaps it's time to try again for an entry!
There are many implant companies, all vying for attention. It's difficult to fight through all the noise. The top academic journals are another barrier: their main concern appears to be to maintain the status quo.
Popular science journalists didn't express any interest when we approached them. I was very surprised by this!
Lastly - and probably most importantly - the company really needs to get a decent PR person on board!
However, you also have to factor in the long-term cost: there are no surgical complications, and no follow-up treatments to deal with infection, as would typically be the case with typical screw-type implant. This is a huge win.
Also note: BioImplant is currently a single tooth replacement, so it's not possible to get a row of adjacent implants. (At least, not yet - I understand this is more an issue of research than practicability.) Make sure you go through the FAQ on the website! (http://www.bioimplant.at/faq-2/)
I'm curious because this sounds rather like an 'anatomic' implant; the world leader in this technology is this small (but awesome) company in Austria: http://bioimplant.at
Here's an X-Ray of the titanium bolt: https://img.jes.xxx/594
And here's a temporary plastic tooth that I had installed while the ceramic one was being manufactured: https://img.jes.xxx/741
The inner screw has a small torx head on it and is threaded up the inside of the larger bolt that is tapped directly into the bone of my jaw.
Profit-driven without competition is the worst of both worlds.
What?
Batteries have made enormous strides in the past two decades. Surely, you remember the days of almost everything running off AAs, which took hours to recharge (If they were even rechargable), and tended to leak their contents at the slightest provocation.
Or, alternatively, you could shell out large amounts of money for lithium-ion batteries, which wouldn't hold half a charge after ~50 cycles, and which would be at 1/6th their original capacity after ~100 cycles.
If anything, battery technology has been a monumental success story. No, we don't have batteries based on unicorn farts that charge in 20 seconds, and hold more energy then gasoline. But what we do have is pretty damn amazing.
I'd think the secondary experience is in laptop batteries, and I'd hazard a guess that there's a similar but less extreme story: perception is similar battery life (perhaps because most life extensions come from low-power modes, so anyone actually using their laptop doesn't reach the claimed numbers for modern laptops?).
Of course, a third major factor is that people tend not to notice incremental improvements as much as step changes, and tend not to "upgrade their battery" in a comparable way.
All told, in relative terms there's probably some truth to it; other technology has progressed faster. But I wholeheartedly agree things have got better.
When they were literally crumbling away later in life, the dentist told me to wait before replacing them, as new filling materials coming down the pike.
So I did, and got all the old fillings drilled out and replaced with epoxy ones that match color with my teeth, will last the rest of my life, and hold the weakened tooth together.
I wish I'd had that paint available these days when I was a kid, that is painted on the tooth and prevents decay.
It takes a certain type of personality to become a dentist.
im sure that everyone can do their own thinking on that subject.
but I have had the gamut oof good to bad dentist experiences;
good: father in law (who was a dentist) was a great man
bad: dentist accused me of having braces (I have perfect teeth - never had braces) -- then charged my insurance for a bunch of procedures which werent performed (I only had a cleaning)
Dentistry has these things too. I think some whitening products are an example. Turns out you don't actually need to be a dentist (from a technical / clinical knowledge perspective) to sell these products, so a lot of random retailers started selling them for a lot cheaper. Dentists got mad, and in these situations the ADA or regional dental associations can drive legislative change. Not saying this always happens, and it certainly isn't unique to dentistry, but these economic issues often dictate what tech gets marketed and what doesnt. If the tech offers a real and meaningful clinical improvement however (whitening does not count) then the tech gets to the market eventually
The issue I see with this approach is that 1) the risk / benefit is not super great, and not better than standard of care from what I can tell. Fillings work pretty well, and if there is any risk you can get cancer or other bad things happen from this regenerative med, it wouldn't be responsible to prescribe it. Further, marketing this would require expensive clinical studies, and you'd never be able to charge enough to recoup this cost. Unless there is a significant clinical benefit, no insurance company would pay for an expensive med vs a simple filling.
This is why most drug developers using cutting edge tech target areas of significant unmet need, like late stage cancer. If it works, you really provide a ton of value to patients (extending health span and life), so insurers will pay you for that value. If you are offering a "cooler" alternative to something that pretty much works, not so much
* the evolution of dental curing lights from cumbersome, active refrigerated, and wired into really light, portable, wireless flashlights/pens
* the introduction of sodium bicarbonate jets for cleaning, polishing and whitening teeth
* the introduction of the ultrasonic scaler
* the change from dental amalgam (mercury-based), for fillings, to cast resin or ceramic
* the introduction of whitening treatments
* the changes from really bulky braces to relativevly slim ones, transparent and low-profile brackets, new techniques that do away with external head-gear for a lot of cases
I've also heard of crowns being 3D imaged and milled from a ceramic blank while the anesthetic takes effect, but only from one person.
These paperclips have the potential to infect healthy gum tissue with nasty anaerobic bacteria from pockets that are already infected. Unless you use one clip per pocket, of course.
If you want good measurements of disease progression, it's much better to use e.g. a BANA test that estimates pathogenic bacteria counts. Or if you are really fancy, sample some gum pockets and get a bit of 16S sequencing done with a MinION.
Translation only, I have no data here aside from that my hygienist does seem to use the same probe without doing much between teeth when my gums are measured this way.
http://www.rdhmag.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-9/colum...
Bacteria already have a great chance to move around the mouth. Healthy pockets are healthy not because they haven't been exposed to bacteria, but because they are place bacteria can't get a foothold.
Sure, brushing and flossing helps, but to say it eliminates dental professionals is absurd. That's like saying a healthy lifestyle means you'll never need a doctor or visit a hospital.
I don't believe it, whatsoever. In fact I challenged some friends (a dentist, an orthopedic surgeon, and a biochemist -- all researchers affiliated with prestigious institutions) to provide that scientific evidence, and after a year they all concluded that standard dental advice is simply wishful thinking. Since it is the recommendation of dental associations, a practicing dentist must give this advice, but that doesn't make it true.
I believe the medical glow makes it appear more sophisticated than it appear, justifying the high costs.
I get that much of it works, so there's not a lot of need to throw it out, but where's the progress? My eye doctor visits add new technology regularly. Not often, to be sure, but still regularly. My eye doctor visits now are quite a bit different in many ways than they were when I first got glasses.
There's a point where I started to wonder if dentists in general are worried about becoming obsolete. That's conspiracy theory, of course, so I don't take it seriously. But I do wonder all the same.