Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry. 
Author Message
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

I was reading a scientific article just yesterday where it
was mentioned that Coleman et al had obtained the original
patent for a technique for bonding ceramic to metal alloys in
1961.  (Patent No. 2980998, issued April 25, 1961).

As I read the article, I became overly filled with emotion.
Had it really been almost forty years since this technologic
development occurred?  Did the time really pass that quickly?

In dental school and in my early days of practice, we still
relied on those somewhat cheezy, acrylic-processed-to-gold
crowns. Unfortunately, the facings possessed the very bad
habit of darkening horribly. They also were wont to
completely popping off far too frequently for our own taste.

Somewhere around Third and Bainbridge Streets over in Center
City Philadelphia, just a couple of blocks from South Street,
there exists a small storefront attorney who "specializes" in
personal bankruptcies for small-time debtors.  These are the
same guys who are drowning in consumer debt.  For $750 or so,
the attorney files the necessary papers and before you know
it, you are free and clear.

However, if you come to him with a product liability lawsuit,
let's say a class action suit against American Home Products,
the manufacturers of Phen-Fen, I am certain he would not even
know where to begin.  Law is just like that.  It is all so
very highly specialized.

Now if the depositions for these small time bankruptcies
routinely got up to $50,000 or more plus court costs, there
would be no personal bankruptcies either.  He fills a certain
need within his community, which completely appeals to his
specialized clientele.  By contrast, product liability
lawsuits run into the millions and you had better get a
lawyer who knows what the heck he is doing.

So here we are, dentists all, and we have little or no
specialization with our own general dental work. Every
patient who comes over even for a simple amalgam filling is
somehow "worked over" and convinced that he/she cannot
possibly endure even one more day without the latest in
cosmetic dentistry.

When looking at the overall {*filter*}condition, this may or may
not be warranted. It may be severe overkill. I bet that
within three or four years, many of these patients will be
out there again looking for yet another dentist and yet
another solution.

This patient will be searching for a little attention for
several new problems and several of those recurring old
problems too.  This may even include several failed cosmetics
restorations.  Why not just go back to the cosmetics dentist
who made you so happy only a few years back?

With dentistry, very little is written in stone. Even less of
dentistry is really permanent. You do not "get your teeth
fixed" and that is that for the next ten years. It does not
work that way.

You will need plenty of ongoing care over a lifetime.  If you
borrowed the money from your family, or if you dug a little
too deeply into your nest egg to get your cosmetic work done,
what will you do the next time around?  The cosmetics
dentists will not want you once your money is spent.  So you
look around for some alternatives.

There are the patients that come over here almost every day
of the week with those failed or failing restorations. They
have no resources for their replacement either.  This is
unfortunate for everybody.

Every patient who wants the latest and the greatest (and is
also willing to pay for the latest and greatest) may be lucky
enough to get it, or maybe not. Now this new technology is
not rocket science and it is not product liability class
action lawsuit stuff either. I am convinced that in one day,
I could teach any layman about all of the ins and outs of
cosmetic dentistry alternatives.  But it is a day. Patients
want the answers in a minute, not in a day.

We dentists know about most of the alternatives ourselves.
The problem is that, just like the class action depositions,
you may not be able to afford them.  Most dental offices
either "ratchet-you-up" or "spin-you-back" to the level of
care that the particular office itself is most comfortable.

Could you imagine that happening within law? Could you
imagine the problem adjusting itself to the solution that the
lawyer knows best with what needs be done?

Cosmetic dentistry is clearly NOT general dentistry.  And
general dentistry is not cosmetic dentistry either. We
dentists tend to confuse our patients and possibly even
confuse ourselves about this.  This is purposefully done to
market our services and make some money. It does not bode
well for this profession.

A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

Conversely, a standard metal/porcelain crown for a busted
tooth (surrounded by a sea of amalgam) is not a very
sophisticated procedure, but the crown might be an adequate
solution.  There are plenty of fine laboratories simply
falling over one another to supply these crowns to dentists.
And they do a pretty decent job with the fabrication part
too.

When comparing fees, it is not correct nor even fair to
compare apples and oranges. As for dental insurance
companies, they are not interested in paying for either
apples or oranges.  They will pay for grapes only.  And they
will keep a quarter-bushel of grapes for themselves for every
bushel of grapes they deliver.  Please consider that the next
time that you are comparing apples and oranges.

Cheers,

Joel

Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

PS- Here is a beautiful porcelain/metal crown with two
precision slots milled into it. The partial denture has cast
male components which will make for a positive seat. It is
very esthetic. Is this for everybody? Are there other
cosmetic alternatives?  Is this the best solution for the
long run?  This is dentistry!



Sat, 26 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.


Quote:
> Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

> I was reading a scientific article just yesterday where it
> was mentioned that Coleman et al had obtained the original
> patent for a technique for bonding ceramic to metal alloys in
> 1961.  (Patent No. 2980998, issued April 25, 1961).

> As I read the article, I became overly filled with emotion.
> Had it really been almost forty years since this technologic
> development occurred?  Did the time really pass that quickly?

> In dental school and in my early days of practice, we still
> relied on those somewhat cheezy, acrylic-processed-to-gold
> crowns. Unfortunately, the facings possessed the very bad
> habit of darkening horribly. They also were wont to
> completely popping off far too frequently for our own taste.

> Somewhere around Third and Bainbridge Streets over in Center
> City Philadelphia, just a couple of blocks from South Street,
> there exists a small storefront attorney who "specializes" in
> personal bankruptcies for small-time debtors.  These are the
> same guys who are drowning in consumer debt.  For $750 or so,
> the attorney files the necessary papers and before you know
> it, you are free and clear.

> However, if you come to him with a product liability lawsuit,
> let's say a class action suit against American Home Products,
> the manufacturers of Phen-Fen, I am certain he would not even
> know where to begin.  Law is just like that.  It is all so
> very highly specialized.

> Now if the depositions for these small time bankruptcies
> routinely got up to $50,000 or more plus court costs, there
> would be no personal bankruptcies either.  He fills a certain
> need within his community, which completely appeals to his
> specialized clientele.  By contrast, product liability
> lawsuits run into the millions and you had better get a
> lawyer who knows what the heck he is doing.

> So here we are, dentists all, and we have little or no
> specialization with our own general dental work. Every
> patient who comes over even for a simple amalgam filling is
> somehow "worked over" and convinced that he/she cannot
> possibly endure even one more day without the latest in
> cosmetic dentistry.

> When looking at the overall {*filter*}condition, this may or may
> not be warranted. It may be severe overkill. I bet that
> within three or four years, many of these patients will be
> out there again looking for yet another dentist and yet
> another solution.

> This patient will be searching for a little attention for
> several new problems and several of those recurring old
> problems too.  This may even include several failed cosmetics
> restorations.  Why not just go back to the cosmetics dentist
> who made you so happy only a few years back?

> With dentistry, very little is written in stone. Even less of
> dentistry is really permanent. You do not "get your teeth
> fixed" and that is that for the next ten years. It does not
> work that way.

> You will need plenty of ongoing care over a lifetime.  If you
> borrowed the money from your family, or if you dug a little
> too deeply into your nest egg to get your cosmetic work done,
> what will you do the next time around?  The cosmetics
> dentists will not want you once your money is spent.  So you
> look around for some alternatives.

> There are the patients that come over here almost every day
> of the week with those failed or failing restorations. They
> have no resources for their replacement either.  This is
> unfortunate for everybody.

> Every patient who wants the latest and the greatest (and is
> also willing to pay for the latest and greatest) may be lucky
> enough to get it, or maybe not. Now this new technology is
> not rocket science and it is not product liability class
> action lawsuit stuff either. I am convinced that in one day,
> I could teach any layman about all of the ins and outs of
> cosmetic dentistry alternatives.  But it is a day. Patients
> want the answers in a minute, not in a day.

> We dentists know about most of the alternatives ourselves.
> The problem is that, just like the class action depositions,
> you may not be able to afford them.  Most dental offices
> either "ratchet-you-up" or "spin-you-back" to the level of
> care that the particular office itself is most comfortable.

> Could you imagine that happening within law? Could you
> imagine the problem adjusting itself to the solution that the
> lawyer knows best with what needs be done?

> Cosmetic dentistry is clearly NOT general dentistry.  And
> general dentistry is not cosmetic dentistry either. We
> dentists tend to confuse our patients and possibly even
> confuse ourselves about this.  This is purposefully done to
> market our services and make some money. It does not bode
> well for this profession.

> A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
> materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
> are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

> Conversely, a standard metal/porcelain crown for a busted
> tooth (surrounded by a sea of amalgam) is not a very
> sophisticated procedure, but the crown might be an adequate
> solution.  There are plenty of fine laboratories simply
> falling over one another to supply these crowns to dentists.
> And they do a pretty decent job with the fabrication part
> too.

> When comparing fees, it is not correct nor even fair to
> compare apples and oranges. As for dental insurance
> companies, they are not interested in paying for either
> apples or oranges.  They will pay for grapes only.  And they
> will keep a quarter-bushel of grapes for themselves for every
> bushel of grapes they deliver.  Please consider that the next
> time that you are comparing apples and oranges.

> Cheers,

> Joel

> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

> PS- Here is a beautiful porcelain/metal crown with two
> precision slots milled into it. The partial denture has cast
> male components which will make for a positive seat. It is
> very esthetic. Is this for everybody? Are there other
> cosmetic alternatives?  Is this the best solution for the
> long run?  This is dentistry!

Morning, Joel!
Which restorations are most likely to fail? And are crowns considered
cosmetic or medically necessary?

----

Sent via Deja.com http://www.***.com/
Before you buy.



Sat, 26 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.
Hi Joel,

Quote:

>Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Shouldn't ALL dentistry be cosmetic?

Quote:
>product liability lawsuits run into the millions ...

Just heard the the class action lawsuit against Heraeus Kulzer,
or what is called the Artglass scandal, due to the manufacturer's
attempt to deny a very obvious fact, is running close to $1,000
per each unit and there are some 250,000 failing units in the US !

That's pretty much!

Hans
===========================================

Quote:

>Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

>I was reading a scientific article just yesterday where it
>was mentioned that Coleman et al had obtained the original
>patent for a technique for bonding ceramic to metal alloys in
>1961.  (Patent No. 2980998, issued April 25, 1961).

>As I read the article, I became overly filled with emotion.
>Had it really been almost forty years since this technologic
>development occurred?  Did the time really pass that quickly?

>In dental school and in my early days of practice, we still
>relied on those somewhat cheezy, acrylic-processed-to-gold
>crowns. Unfortunately, the facings possessed the very bad
>habit of darkening horribly. They also were wont to
>completely popping off far too frequently for our own taste.

>Somewhere around Third and Bainbridge Streets over in Center
>City Philadelphia, just a couple of blocks from South Street,
>there exists a small storefront attorney who "specializes" in
>personal bankruptcies for small-time debtors.  These are the
>same guys who are drowning in consumer debt.  For $750 or so,
>the attorney files the necessary papers and before you know
>it, you are free and clear.

>However, if you come to him with a product liability lawsuit,
>let's say a class action suit against American Home Products,
>the manufacturers of Phen-Fen, I am certain he would not even
>know where to begin.  Law is just like that.  It is all so
>very highly specialized.

>Now if the depositions for these small time bankruptcies
>routinely got up to $50,000 or more plus court costs, there
>would be no personal bankruptcies either.  He fills a certain
>need within his community, which completely appeals to his
>specialized clientele.  By contrast, product liability
>lawsuits run into the millions and you had better get a
>lawyer who knows what the heck he is doing.

>So here we are, dentists all, and we have little or no
>specialization with our own general dental work. Every
>patient who comes over even for a simple amalgam filling is
>somehow "worked over" and convinced that he/she cannot
>possibly endure even one more day without the latest in
>cosmetic dentistry.

>When looking at the overall {*filter*}condition, this may or may
>not be warranted. It may be severe overkill. I bet that
>within three or four years, many of these patients will be
>out there again looking for yet another dentist and yet
>another solution.

>This patient will be searching for a little attention for
>several new problems and several of those recurring old
>problems too.  This may even include several failed cosmetics
>restorations.  Why not just go back to the cosmetics dentist
>who made you so happy only a few years back?

>With dentistry, very little is written in stone. Even less of
>dentistry is really permanent. You do not "get your teeth
>fixed" and that is that for the next ten years. It does not
>work that way.

>You will need plenty of ongoing care over a lifetime.  If you
>borrowed the money from your family, or if you dug a little
>too deeply into your nest egg to get your cosmetic work done,
>what will you do the next time around?  The cosmetics
>dentists will not want you once your money is spent.  So you
>look around for some alternatives.

>There are the patients that come over here almost every day
>of the week with those failed or failing restorations. They
>have no resources for their replacement either.  This is
>unfortunate for everybody.

>Every patient who wants the latest and the greatest (and is
>also willing to pay for the latest and greatest) may be lucky
>enough to get it, or maybe not. Now this new technology is
>not rocket science and it is not product liability class
>action lawsuit stuff either. I am convinced that in one day,
>I could teach any layman about all of the ins and outs of
>cosmetic dentistry alternatives.  But it is a day. Patients
>want the answers in a minute, not in a day.

>We dentists know about most of the alternatives ourselves.
>The problem is that, just like the class action depositions,
>you may not be able to afford them.  Most dental offices
>either "ratchet-you-up" or "spin-you-back" to the level of
>care that the particular office itself is most comfortable.

>Could you imagine that happening within law? Could you
>imagine the problem adjusting itself to the solution that the
>lawyer knows best with what needs be done?

>Cosmetic dentistry is clearly NOT general dentistry.  And
>general dentistry is not cosmetic dentistry either. We
>dentists tend to confuse our patients and possibly even
>confuse ourselves about this.  This is purposefully done to
>market our services and make some money. It does not bode
>well for this profession.

>A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
>materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
>are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

>Conversely, a standard metal/porcelain crown for a busted
>tooth (surrounded by a sea of amalgam) is not a very
>sophisticated procedure, but the crown might be an adequate
>solution.  There are plenty of fine laboratories simply
>falling over one another to supply these crowns to dentists.
>And they do a pretty decent job with the fabrication part
>too.

>When comparing fees, it is not correct nor even fair to
>compare apples and oranges. As for dental insurance
>companies, they are not interested in paying for either
>apples or oranges.  They will pay for grapes only.  And they
>will keep a quarter-bushel of grapes for themselves for every
>bushel of grapes they deliver.  Please consider that the next
>time that you are comparing apples and oranges.

>Cheers,

>Joel

>Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

>PS- Here is a beautiful porcelain/metal crown with two
>precision slots milled into it. The partial denture has cast
>male components which will make for a positive seat. It is
>very esthetic. Is this for everybody? Are there other
>cosmetic alternatives?  Is this the best solution for the
>long run?  This is dentistry!



Sat, 26 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Quote:
> Somewhere around Third and Bainbridge Streets over in Center
> City Philadelphia, just a couple of blocks from South Street,
> there exists a small storefront attorney who "specializes" in
> personal bankruptcies for small-time debtors.  These are the
> same guys who are drowning in consumer debt.  For $750 or so,
> the attorney files the necessary papers and before you know
> it, you are free and clear.

> However, if you come to him with a product liability lawsuit,
> let's say a class action suit against American Home Products,
> the manufacturers of Phen-Fen, I am certain he would not even
> know where to begin.  Law is just like that.  It is all so
> very highly specialized.

> Now if the depositions for these small time bankruptcies
> routinely got up to $50,000 or more plus court costs, there
> would be no personal bankruptcies either.  He fills a certain
> need within his community, which completely appeals to his
> specialized clientele.  By contrast, product liability
> lawsuits run into the millions and you had better get a
> lawyer who knows what the heck he is doing.

> So here we are, dentists all, and we have little or no
> specialization with our own general dental work. Every
> patient who comes over even for a simple amalgam filling is
> somehow "worked over" and convinced that he/she cannot
> possibly endure even one more day without the latest in
> cosmetic dentistry.

> When looking at the overall {*filter*}condition, this may or may
> not be warranted. It may be severe overkill. I bet that
> within three or four years, many of these patients will be
> out there again looking for yet another dentist and yet
> another solution.

> This patient will be searching for a little attention for
> several new problems and several of those recurring old
> problems too.  This may even include several failed cosmetics
> restorations.  Why not just go back to the cosmetics dentist
> who made you so happy only a few years back?

> With dentistry, very little is written in stone. Even less of
> dentistry is really permanent. You do not "get your teeth
> fixed" and that is that for the next ten years. It does not
> work that way.

> You will need plenty of ongoing care over a lifetime.  If you
> borrowed the money from your family, or if you dug a little
> too deeply into your nest egg to get your cosmetic work done,
> what will you do the next time around?  The cosmetics
> dentists will not want you once your money is spent.  So you
> look around for some alternatives.

> There are the patients that come over here almost every day
> of the week with those failed or failing restorations. They
> have no resources for their replacement either.  This is
> unfortunate for everybody.

> Every patient who wants the latest and the greatest (and is
> also willing to pay for the latest and greatest) may be lucky
> enough to get it, or maybe not. Now this new technology is
> not rocket science and it is not product liability class
> action lawsuit stuff either. I am convinced that in one day,
> I could teach any layman about all of the ins and outs of
> cosmetic dentistry alternatives.  But it is a day. Patients
> want the answers in a minute, not in a day.

> We dentists know about most of the alternatives ourselves.
> The problem is that, just like the class action depositions,
> you may not be able to afford them.  Most dental offices
> either "ratchet-you-up" or "spin-you-back" to the level of
> care that the particular office itself is most comfortable.

> Could you imagine that happening within law? Could you
> imagine the problem adjusting itself to the solution that the
> lawyer knows best with what needs be done?

> Cosmetic dentistry is clearly NOT general dentistry.  And
> general dentistry is not cosmetic dentistry either. We
> dentists tend to confuse our patients and possibly even
> confuse ourselves about this.  This is purposefully done to
> market our services and make some money. It does not bode
> well for this profession.

> A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
> materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
> are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

> Conversely, a standard metal/porcelain crown for a busted
> tooth (surrounded by a sea of amalgam) is not a very
> sophisticated procedure, but the crown might be an adequate
> solution.  There are plenty of fine laboratories simply
> falling over one another to supply these crowns to dentists.
> And they do a pretty decent job with the fabrication part
> too.

> When comparing fees, it is not correct nor even fair to
> compare apples and oranges. As for dental insurance
> companies, they are not interested in paying for either
> apples or oranges.  They will pay for grapes only.  And they
> will keep a quarter-bushel of grapes for themselves for every
> bushel of grapes they deliver.  Please consider that the next
> time that you are comparing apples and oranges.

> Cheers,

> Joel

> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

Good points . . . well taken.  Thank you.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.***.com/
Before you buy.



Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Quote:

>> PS- Here is a beautiful porcelain/metal crown with two
>> precision slots milled into it. The partial denture has cast
>> male components which will make for a positive seat. It is
>> very esthetic. Is this for everybody? Are there other
>> cosmetic alternatives?  Is this the best solution for the
>> long run?  This is dentistry!

>Morning, Joel!
>Which restorations are most likely to fail? And are crowns considered
>cosmetic or medically necessary?

Any crown where insufficient tooth structure remains, or is not
properly preapred WILL fail. Most of the others will not fail.

Crowns are either "medically necessary" or cosmetic. I try to define
which the patient is after, and then go along with it or not, based
upon perceived success.

Cheers,

Joel

----

Quote:
>----

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.



Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Quote:

>Hi Joel,

>>Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.
>Shouldn't ALL dentistry be cosmetic?

All dentistry should be esthetic.

Cosmetic suggests "superficial." Dentistry should be based upon a good
foundation and should not be superficial.

Quote:
>>product liability lawsuits run into the millions ...
>Just heard the the class action lawsuit against Heraeus Kulzer,
>or what is called the Artglass scandal, due to the manufacturer's
>attempt to deny a very obvious fact, is running close to $1,000
>per each unit and there are some 250,000 failing units in the US !
>That's pretty much!
>Hans
>===========================================

>>Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

>>I was reading a scientific article just yesterday where it
>>was mentioned that Coleman et al had obtained the original
>>patent for a technique for bonding ceramic to metal alloys in
>>1961.  (Patent No. 2980998, issued April 25, 1961).

>>As I read the article, I became overly filled with emotion.
>>Had it really been almost forty years since this technologic
>>development occurred?  Did the time really pass that quickly?

>>In dental school and in my early days of practice, we still
>>relied on those somewhat cheezy, acrylic-processed-to-gold
>>crowns. Unfortunately, the facings possessed the very bad
>>habit of darkening horribly. They also were wont to
>>completely popping off far too frequently for our own taste.

>>Somewhere around Third and Bainbridge Streets over in Center
>>City Philadelphia, just a couple of blocks from South Street,
>>there exists a small storefront attorney who "specializes" in
>>personal bankruptcies for small-time debtors.  These are the
>>same guys who are drowning in consumer debt.  For $750 or so,
>>the attorney files the necessary papers and before you know
>>it, you are free and clear.

>>However, if you come to him with a product liability lawsuit,
>>let's say a class action suit against American Home Products,
>>the manufacturers of Phen-Fen, I am certain he would not even
>>know where to begin.  Law is just like that.  It is all so
>>very highly specialized.

>>Now if the depositions for these small time bankruptcies
>>routinely got up to $50,000 or more plus court costs, there
>>would be no personal bankruptcies either.  He fills a certain
>>need within his community, which completely appeals to his
>>specialized clientele.  By contrast, product liability
>>lawsuits run into the millions and you had better get a
>>lawyer who knows what the heck he is doing.

>>So here we are, dentists all, and we have little or no
>>specialization with our own general dental work. Every
>>patient who comes over even for a simple amalgam filling is
>>somehow "worked over" and convinced that he/she cannot
>>possibly endure even one more day without the latest in
>>cosmetic dentistry.

>>When looking at the overall {*filter*}condition, this may or may
>>not be warranted. It may be severe overkill. I bet that
>>within three or four years, many of these patients will be
>>out there again looking for yet another dentist and yet
>>another solution.

>>This patient will be searching for a little attention for
>>several new problems and several of those recurring old
>>problems too.  This may even include several failed cosmetics
>>restorations.  Why not just go back to the cosmetics dentist
>>who made you so happy only a few years back?

>>With dentistry, very little is written in stone. Even less of
>>dentistry is really permanent. You do not "get your teeth
>>fixed" and that is that for the next ten years. It does not
>>work that way.

>>You will need plenty of ongoing care over a lifetime.  If you
>>borrowed the money from your family, or if you dug a little
>>too deeply into your nest egg to get your cosmetic work done,
>>what will you do the next time around?  The cosmetics
>>dentists will not want you once your money is spent.  So you
>>look around for some alternatives.

>>There are the patients that come over here almost every day
>>of the week with those failed or failing restorations. They
>>have no resources for their replacement either.  This is
>>unfortunate for everybody.

>>Every patient who wants the latest and the greatest (and is
>>also willing to pay for the latest and greatest) may be lucky
>>enough to get it, or maybe not. Now this new technology is
>>not rocket science and it is not product liability class
>>action lawsuit stuff either. I am convinced that in one day,
>>I could teach any layman about all of the ins and outs of
>>cosmetic dentistry alternatives.  But it is a day. Patients
>>want the answers in a minute, not in a day.

>>We dentists know about most of the alternatives ourselves.
>>The problem is that, just like the class action depositions,
>>you may not be able to afford them.  Most dental offices
>>either "ratchet-you-up" or "spin-you-back" to the level of
>>care that the particular office itself is most comfortable.

>>Could you imagine that happening within law? Could you
>>imagine the problem adjusting itself to the solution that the
>>lawyer knows best with what needs be done?

>>Cosmetic dentistry is clearly NOT general dentistry.  And
>>general dentistry is not cosmetic dentistry either. We
>>dentists tend to confuse our patients and possibly even
>>confuse ourselves about this.  This is purposefully done to
>>market our services and make some money. It does not bode
>>well for this profession.

>>A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
>>materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
>>are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

>>Conversely, a standard metal/porcelain crown for a busted
>>tooth (surrounded by a sea of amalgam) is not a very
>>sophisticated procedure, but the crown might be an adequate
>>solution.  There are plenty of fine laboratories simply
>>falling over one another to supply these crowns to dentists.
>>And they do a pretty decent job with the fabrication part
>>too.

>>When comparing fees, it is not correct nor even fair to
>>compare apples and oranges. As for dental insurance
>>companies, they are not interested in paying for either
>>apples or oranges.  They will pay for grapes only.  And they
>>will keep a quarter-bushel of grapes for themselves for every
>>bushel of grapes they deliver.  Please consider that the next
>>time that you are comparing apples and oranges.

>>Cheers,

>>Joel

>>Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

>>PS- Here is a beautiful porcelain/metal crown with two
>>precision slots milled into it. The partial denture has cast
>>male components which will make for a positive seat. It is
>>very esthetic. Is this for everybody? Are there other
>>cosmetic alternatives?  Is this the best solution for the
>>long run?  This is dentistry!



Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.
In > > A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest

Quote:
> > materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
> > are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

Wait, so what's the "highly aesthetic restoration" that's a better
alternative than a crown?

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

  :

Quote:
> In > > A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
> > > materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
> > > are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

> Wait, so what's the "highly aesthetic restoration" that's a better
> alternative than a crown?

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 Cosmetic dentistry is not general dentistry.

Quote:


>  :
>> In > > A highly aesthetic restoration, using all of the latest
>> > > materials and newest techniques is indeed expensive. There
>> > > are also expensive lab costs which must be paid for in full.

>> Wait, so what's the "highly aesthetic restoration" that's a better
>> alternative than a crown?

I like porcelain and ArtGlass onlays which preserve more tooth
structure.
Quote:

>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.



Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 10 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Why I am mistrustful of tax reduction and its relationship to dentistry (general dentistry)

2. Cosmetic dentistry, general information

3. Cosmetic dentistry, new site

4. What is Cosmetic Dentistry?

5. Cosmetic Dentistry Before And After

6. Cosmetic Dentistry: Is it worth it?

7. Cosmetic Dentistry

8. Cosmetic Dentistry

9. Cosmetic dentistry

10. Help with Cosmetic Dentistry Problem (Veneers)

11. Cosmetic Dentistry Horror Story


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software