I wrote a letter to Jane.
Dear Jane,
I would like to comment on your article about a dental shift. There
are a number of problems with your article. There are no prospective
studies that say implants are better than bridges between teeth.
The mouth is divided between the anterior teeth and the posterior
teeth. All bridges, including implant bridges are prone to failure
when (1) anterior teeth are connected to posterior teeth or (2) when
the bite has no anterior guidance.
You ask a periodontist about bridges and of course he will say
implants are better because he doesn't make a dime from bridges. You
should get an unbiased source. Ask Dr. Tarnow, the implant director
at NYU.
My mother is 98 years old, and has two posterior bridges over 30 years
old! Why are they successful? Because of her bite. No group
function.
I remember you writing in the 1980's about having a bad dentist.
Well, maybe if you had a good dentist your bridge would still be
there. Don't blame bridges because you had a bad dentist.
Did you know, that when implants fail, the dentist can send them back
to the manufacturer and get a new one free. Why are these statistics
not released? Something fishy must be going on.
Food gets stuck between implants because implants must be farther away
from natural teeth then normal. And, the gum tissue doesn't grow high
around implants, because of a lack of PDL.
Don't believe everything a periodontist tells you. If plaque is the
cause of periodontal disease, then why don't children get destructive
bone loss? All bacterial infections must cause disease in all
hosts? Some hosts may be more susceptible, but if children do not
get the disease, how are we sure that bacteria cause periodontal
disease if only adults get it? There is no other bacterial disease
that confines itself to one age group.
Dental implants and bridges are great, but they neither is a panacea.
Sincerely,
Dr. David DiBenedetto
It was a simplistic article, I agree. I think the swipe against oral
surgeons (in comparison to periodontists) as far as cooperation with
restorative dentists was particularly gratuitous--and unfounded.
I also think many surgeons are a bit quick to dismiss the best of the
old technology. I've also seen fixed bridges last over 50 years.
I see the conflict between restoring teeth and implant placement
playing out with the surgeons vs. the endodontists. I think an
evenhanded examination of the evidence tells me that both options are
here for the long run.
Steve
> It was a simplistic article, I agree. I think the swipe against oral
>surgeons (in comparison to periodontists) as far as cooperation with
>restorative dentists was particularly gratuitous--and unfounded.
> I also think many surgeons are a bit quick to dismiss the best of the
>old technology. I've also seen fixed bridges last over 50 years.
> I see the conflict between restoring teeth and implant placement
>playing out with the surgeons vs. the endodontists. I think an
>evenhanded examination of the evidence tells me that both options are
>here for the long run.
>
>Steve
The more implants I restore, the more I think they are better than
bridges. Bridges are reasonable in many instances but patients often
don't do the oral hygiene that they should.
And the longer span the bridge is, I feel that implants are a better
option.
I respect your experience. Also agree about long-span bridges. But
I've seen some implant fixtures fail, esp. in dirty mouths. I don't
think oral hygiene is a non-issue for implants. Yes, you can floss
them, but will they? ;-)
Steve
Nothing is 100% certain or foolproof. Patients have to be at least as
interested as the dentist is. Unfortunately, often it isn't even
close.
All the best,
Proka