Page 48 - CEREC Q3 | 2014

46 | CERECDOCTORS.COM | QUARTER 3 | 2014
all around us, we see a technology
race; there is always something new that
is supposed to improve our lives. Some-
thing that is supposed tomake the routine
— and not so routine — tasks of our lives
simple and errorless, automatic, even.
That is, if everything goes as planned,
which we all know doesn’t happen all the
time. We hit roadblocks when something
doesn’t communicate with another thing
(leaving us stuck in a technology limbo),
making what should be a simple auto-
matic process difficult. This causes us to
want to get rid of the new and return to
the old.
Technology in the dental office is no
different. Many of us have hi-tech detritus
collecting dust in the corner, where its
only use is to keep a jacket off the floor.
On the other hand, CEREC tech-
nology has proven its value time and time
again for my office. It has been my best
employee over the last nine years. And,
when I can get it to play another role in
my office, it is just a bigger return on my
investment. When it does this while also
improving the quality of care I deliver to
my patient, it is a win-win for all.
Presently, we are at a point where we
have CEREC technology, Galileos tech-
nology andmaterials technologymerging
to create a perfect storm, tossing out our
previous beliefs and raising the standard
of care we deliver to our patients.
No longer do we have to accept a final
outcome that is an esthetic compromise.
After all, isn’t the goal of our treatment
to complete it and have it
appear invisible? No work
we do should stand out,
and nothing should look
CEREC + Cone Beam + Materials:
Making the Complex Simple
We No Longer Have to Accept an Esthetic Compromise
The ability to obtain accurate guides
— classic or OptiGuide — from SiCat,
or create your own chairside via cerec-
guide, facilitates the accurate transfer of
the implant to the planned position.
Time and time again, practitioners have
reported and demonstrated high preci-
sion with the guide surgery process. My
own personal experience has confirmed
this, and also has made me question what
else is possible with not only the integra-
tion process but also the advancements
fromour material partners.
More and more research is being done
on the soft-tissue response that takes
place during implant therapy, including
what works andwhat doesn’t, what tissue
is tolerant and what tissue is fragile to the
man-made. Figure 1 demonstrates what
the result can be after a patient loses a
premolar and the area is restored with
CEREC. Less cost, less morbidity, less
pain; all things that add up to creating
raving fans who will drive more patients
to our offices. In addition, this integration
allows us to rethink some of the principles
of biology, andallows us toworkwith it for
the best result possible.
CEREC also allows us to fully evaluate
thepatient dentitionand their functional
pathways. The perfect restoration can
be planned, and then this plan can
be imported into the Galaxis software.
In Figure 2, we can see the present
condition of the patient’s tooth, the bone
profile and anatomical features associ-
ated with the edentulous site.
In Figure 3, we can see a cone beam
scan where the CEREC scan has been
imported. On one screen we can view the
bone and the final prosthetic outcome,
the ideal site selected or plans to create
the ideal site made. The ability to deter-
mine all these factors leads to building
confidence in your treatment plan and
confidence in your case presentation. It
removes many of the unknowns that one
can encounter during the treatment that
can have a large, negative effect on the
financials involved. Not only do we, as the
businessowner, wanttoaccuratelypredict
the cost of doing the treatment, thepatient
also wants to know so they can plan prop-
erly. Simplifying the financial conversa-
tion leads tomore andmore people saying
yes to your treatment presentation.
Without a way to transfer the plan
from your computer screen to the
patient, all this effort would be wasted.
insults we deliver to it during the process.
One observation that has been
constant is the reporting of attaining the
strongest adhesions between soft tissue
and the abutment surface by placing
the abutments at time of surgery or the
uncovering, and never disturbing the
soft tissue adhesions. The more you
remove and replace prosthetic compo-
nents, theweaker the adhesions become.
Then, as the strength of the adhesions
diminishes, the long-term stability of
the soft tissue could also be jeopardized.
Let’s look at the possibilities with
current implant therapy.
1
CASE STUDY ||| BY PETE GARDELL, D.D.S.