Page 65 - CEREC Q4 | 2014
Basic HTML Version
reconsider that option, if in fact one believes that is the case,
especially inapatient this youngwithan intact dentitionwith
minimal needs. If I were treating that patient, I would have
gottenher out of her acute pain, temped the tooth, medicated
her appropriately, and asked her to think about her choices.
I would not have removed the tooth, but sent her to an oral
surgeon or endodontist after she slept on it for a few days.
When one steps back and removes themselves from the
obvious profitability to be gained from the patient’s decision,
I have found this to be a very effective profound statement
to patients that is very powerful. If finances were truly not
a concern here, salvaging the tooth would certainly seem to
be a much less costly option for the patient. Removing the
tooth and going to an immediate placement may not be as
risk-free for her as well, as several other cases posted on this
site would appear to illustrate as the placement went south,
requiring additional or repeated surgery. In this case, I would
have preferred a delayed placement approach.
allow the patient (and parents) tomake their own decisions.
There are times when we must stand our ground and deny
doing procedures on certain patients; this is not a case for
that. I also agree with Baron that this type of scenario will
become more prevalent in our practices as the population
becomes more educated on implant dentistry. I have more
than a handful of patients that would rather have the tooth
removed and replaced with an implant instead of RCT, CL,
CBU and CEREC. Sad but true.
Thomas Kauffman
Sorry Baron, patients in pain should be treated,
and their options considered carefully — on that
we agree. We all have ways to encourage patients to proceed
with what we believe to be the best choice, and sometimes
the refusal to go along with the removal of a perfectly good
restorable tooth is the only thing that will encourage them to
