Talk:Dental implants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I disagree with this proposal as the procedure for having a mini dental implant placed is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the procedure for having a conventional implant placed. In addition, the design of mini dental implants are significantly different from conventional implants, as conventional implants are generally hollow on the inside while mini dental implants are generally solid implants. In short, in design and placement procedure mini dental implants and conventional implants are fundamentally different.

Mini dental implants are placed in a flapless and minimally invasive procedure under local anesthetic[1]. This is in sharp contrast to conventional implants, which are often placed in a procedure requiring a flap, bone graft, and/or significant healing time[2].

To Rod Dailey, (Personal attack removed), manufacturer of the implants for which you are intending to pass off the mini dental implants article as encyclopedic material,
Your disagreement is inconsequential -- let's stick with facts, rather than your commercial sentiments. Narrow diameter dental implants are not placed significantly different than conventional diameter implants. They are both roughened-surface titanium-based screws that are placed into the alveolar bone in the hopes of osseointegration for long-term prosthesis support. Conventional implants can and may be placed flaplessly, and it is merely the narrow diameter of mini dental implants that allow them to be placed flaplessly as a rule -- but there are still contraindications to placing mini dental implants flaplessly, such as Siebert class I and III ridges. The fact that the implants are solid or hollow merely reflect the restorative manner in which the implants are placed -- the science and concept behind implants is identical. Conventional implants are also placed under local anesthesia and 'minimally invasive' is a completely subjective term. This is not comprehensive textbook on dental implants, but a Wikipedia article that will outline the basic premises of dental implants -- a quick 5 sentence paragraph can easily serve to make the differentiation between conventional and mini dental implants, and there is no need to have a separate article -- especially not one conceived by the company rep that markets the mini dental implants, making sure to have registered and trademark comments spread evenly throughout the article and triple and quadruple linking terms within the same sentence. Your blatant attempt to capitalize on Wikipedia as a marketing outlet is prohibited by numerous Wikipedia guidelines -- please quit it. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I did not create this article. I improved it. A cursory review of the article history will attest to the fact that this article was horrendous before I improved it. It was not sourced. It was not well written. It was not useful. It has come a long way since and if reasonable people have any specific critiques about the content, please let them speak up. Unreasonable people, please feel free to continue with your personal attacks. It diminishes you and not me. Trust me, I do not care at all what you think about me. None of your opinions are ever cited and sourced, while my improvements to the article are cited. Many of the statements that you have made about the content are errant. For example, you state that conventional and mini dental implants are "roughened-surface"...screws. However, there are mini dental implants on the market that are NOT surface roughened. In your rebuttal, you indicate that "minimally invasive" is a completely subjective term and yet "minimally invasive" is featured prominently in the Invasiveness of surgical procedures article, which I have never edited. You would have the community believe that "minimally invasive" is not fit for the mini dental implants article and yet it is fit to have its own section of another Wiki article. The argument against the use of the term "minimally invasive" is incoherent. It is possible that editors will disagree on articles. At some point, you have to realize that you are not the only person on Earth qualified to discuss or edit articles on implants.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia and may be removed by anyone. See the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page.

Dailey78 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)dailey78


  1. ^ Shatkin, TE (2007). "Mini dental implants for long term fixed and removeable prosthetics: A retrospective analysis of 2514 implants placed over a five year period". Compendium. 28: 36–41. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Sendax, VI (1996). "Mini-implants as adjuncts for transitional prostheses". Dental Implantol Update. 7: 12–15.