|The opinions within this web page are not ours.Authors have been credited for the individual posts where they are - photographs courtesy: Gary|
From: Gary L. Henkel D.D.S.
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:47 PM
Subject: [implants] why i don't like pans
First one got screwed up, let me try again. Point I am making is we did a calibration pan with a known 5mm metal sphere impbedded, and calculated 10.9 mm over the ian. Based on that we placed a 10x5mm prima connex fixture uneventfully. But the followup pan and retro analysis shows we had more room than the initial pan analysis revealed, to the point where we could have placed a 13mm fixture. Digital pan, same office, same machine. A cone beam would have been spot on.
Is the teaching point here that you could have placed the implant deeper had you made your plan with a periapical film? - DanS
Quite frankly, you are probably correct, but I was really attempting to emphasize the greater accuracy of a cone beam as compared to a pan. - Gary
Maybe so, but letís not forget, the length (once you hit 9-10 mm) gives the greatest advantage in the stabilization phase of healing. It is the first 5-6 mm of the implant and surrounding bone that bears the greatest function and stress for the life of the restoration. I would rather be safe around the IAN with a 10 mm implant than beat myself up about not having a CT for a routine implant placement. - Mark
Agreed. I simply posted this as an example of a thread we had going a while back mark. Once you are able to get a 10mm fixture into place, particularly in d3 bone as I had here, I have no concerns about the case. - Gary
Gary, Did you compare the know length of the upper implant to the 5 mm ball? cylinders are not as accurate as the ball barrings, but for an added guess it can not hurt. AND I re figured the measurement on the pano with my screen using the 5 mm ball bearing and came up with 13.5 mm not 10.5. BUT on a monitor I could be off. - Alan