Is it better to use patient-specific implants in orbital reconstruction? Or should you use preformed titanium mesh?
Which method is more accurate in terms of oral volume reconstruction? And which method boasts fewer complications?
On this episode of Dentist Brian Candy, I share the findings of a recent study comparing preformed versus patient-specific implants to address orbital trauma and explain what kind of implants I use for mild, moderately complex and complex fractures.
I go on to discuss another study in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery comparing the frequencies, types and hospital admission rates of head and neck injuries in subjects who practice different forms of martial arts.
Listen in for insight around the CAD/CAM technologies I am adding to my repertoire for complex reconstructions and find out why Liberty Oral Surgery is switching to TiUltra implants.
Key Takeaways
Why Liberty Oral Surgery is switching to Nobel Biocare TiUltra implants
The findings of a recent study published in JOMS comparing preformed vs. patient-specific implants for orbital reconstruction
How CAD/CAM technologies are used to make patient-specific implants
Why I use porous polyethylene implants impregnated with titanium for mild to moderately complex reconstruction
My plans to add CAD/CAM tech to my repertoire for more complex fractures
The frequencies, types and hospital admission rates of head and neck injuries in subjects who practice different martial arts fighting styles
How taekwondo was more likely to lead to a head injury while jujitsu and judo were more likely to cause neck injuries
Why judo injuries were more likely to result in hospital admission
Dentist Brain Candy on Facebook
Dentist Brain Candy on YouTube
Dentist Brain Candy Continuing Education
Email bryanmclelland@hotmail.com
Call (509) 922-2273
Liberty Oral Surgery on Eventbrite
Administering anesthesia prior to a dental procedure is bound to cause patients some pain and anxiety.
But does the delivery system make a difference?
Do patients experience more or less discomfort when the practitioner uses a computer-assisted device as opposed to traditional anesthesia?
On this episode of Dentist Brian Candy, I walk you through a recent study published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery comparing computerized delivery systems with conventional local anesthesia.
I share the study’s findings that less pain and anxiety is associated with computerized techniques but raise questions about the statistical significance of pain score differences between the two methods.
Listen in to understand how the location and speed of injection impact pain scores and find out why I’m not investing in a computer-assisted anesthetic delivery system anytime soon.
Key Takeaways
How a recent study in JOMS compared computerized delivery systems with traditional local anesthesia
The study’s finding that less pain and anxiety was associated with computerized techniques
Why the authors urge caution in interpreting the results of this study
How the location of a local anesthetic impacts the amount of pain a patient feels
How the speed of injection differs between computer-assisted devices vs. conventional injections (and how that might affect pain scores)
How long I typically take to administer a local anesthetic
The study’s conclusion that conventional anesthesia is widely used, safe and effective
Why the authors of the study do not recommend the purchase of computerized anesthesia devices based on their meta-analysis
Why I question the statistical significance of pain score differences between conventional and computer-assisted anesthesia
Dentist Brain Candy on Facebook
Dentist Brain Candy on YouTube
Dentist Brain Candy Continuing Education
Email bryanmclelland@hotmail.com
Call (509) 922-2273