QuickSplint has many functions in general practice, but it is also a great resource overall in both diagnostics and restorative dentistry. It’s ideal for patients who grind, those with endodontic issues, and anyone needing a restoration.

QuickSplint to Improve the Patient Experience

Many dentists see patients who have wear on their teeth but don’t think they grind at all. They might have said that they used to grind their teeth, but they believe they don’t anymore. You can use the QuickSplint as a learning experience where the patient is able to recognize the cause of the attrition.

It’s nice to rely on this quick, easy, and inexpensive device. Go ahead and have the patient sleep in it for a little while. The QuickSplint will then reveal whether or not they are clenching and grinding. After the proof is clearly demonstrated, you can have an impactful conversation with your patient.

Another option for QuickSplint use is as a means for handling parafunction and restorative materials selection. Today, we talk a lot about posterior materials when we are doing crowns on first or second molars. Are we going to use high strength ceramics or traditional PFM restorations? Instead of guessing about the patient’s parafunctional risk and how much load they will place on the restoration, you can easily get that information with a QuickSplint.

Additionally, you can use the QuickSplint as a post-op device after an endodontic procedure. You can reduce a patient’s discomfort significantly in less than three minutes and also help the tooth heal without occlusal pressure. You then won’t have to take the entire occlusal table off the problem tooth. This can even work during pre-op for a patient whose tooth appears to need endodontic treatment.

In our Essentials One course at Pankey we use the Quicksplint as an overnight deprogrammer to allow us to capture very accurate diagnostic records.

Do you use QuickSplint in your dental practice? Tell us your best tips for using this handy little tool!

My experience with splint therapy was like most dentist’s prior to developing the skills taught at Pankey. In fact, my appliance was not really therapy at all. Perhaps just a shot in the dark “helmet” that protected teeth against collisions with very little intention.

Throughout the years there have been many facets of my experience I value greatly in guiding patients to health using plastic:

Splint Therapy and Appliance Design

Appliance design is a provisional analog (that is, a practice replacement) for any changes we make to the teeth and ultimately the stomatognathic system. The splint is a great diagnostic tool that is capable of healing, but it’s also an iconic part of the behavioral interaction between the provider and the patient.

Aside from physically being an orthotic analog, the splint is a training tool, maybe even the greatest reversible “do-no-harm” in our profession. Case by case, each patient experiences changes and familiarizes themselves with my touch and caring.

Month by month and year by year dentists educate themselves and develop an understanding of bite relationships by using therapy. This happens case by case too, much like waxing cars and painting fences for Mr. Miyagi. As the experiences compile, sometimes our questions do as well. Sometimes we turn to our mentors for answers, much like the Karate Kid.

For the learning dentist, different parts come together when bringing splint therapy from the classroom to the operatory. There is the initial understanding of the “why” that can be conceptualized in theory, but not realized in practice until the “how” of the technical piece arrives through experiential understanding.

Each provider comes into their own by developing skills to have patients relate needs and eventually invite them confidently to enter appliance therapy.

There’s more to come in Part 2! What challenges have you faced in splint therapy techniques to ease patient discomfort? 

My patient wasn’t satisfied with the esthetics and feel of her previous restoration. Detailed planning enabled me to deliver a beautiful, functional result. Here is the conclusion of this case and placement of the new six unit anterior bridge:

Failed Restoration: Provisional

After the treatment planning was completed, I removed the patient’s existing anterior bridge and replaced it with a bisacryl provisional derived from the orthodontic wax-up. I sectioned it specifically to enable tooth movement while I restored the pontic sites. This meant sectioning between the maxillary central, the upper left lateral and central, and the upper right canine and lateral.

I then cemented the provisional with Rely-X luting cement. Doing so decreased displacement secondary to the orthodontic forces. Next, the patient went through orthodontic therapy over three months. Following this, she was ready for periodontal surgery. Crown lengthening was done on the upper right canine, in addition to placing connective tissue grafts in the pontic sites. This ensured ovate pontics could develop.

Failed Restoration: Equilibration & Placement

Equilibration was the natural next step. It was used to achieve the necessary anterior guidance with posterior disclusion, as well as freedom in the anterior and no centric occlusion slide to maximum intercuspal position.

I prepped off the orthodontic provisional and refined the preparation. For the margin design, I went with a shoulder and rounded internal line. This could accommodate the all-porcelain restorations.

We weren’t worried about the reduction of 1.5 mm because of the original tooth reduction, but we did go forward with placement of a third plane of reduction. This was necessary for final incisal edge placement in a AP dimension.

Venus from Hereaus was used to create the six unit provisional from upper right to upper left canine. This also allowed tissue development to occur in the pontic sites.

After taking final impressions three months later, the six unit bridge was made using E.max. I placed the patient’s direct composite veneers on the upper first molars and bicuspids. Shade matching to the anterior bridge was one advantage of this approach. Also, the patient could choose to move to porcelain at some point in the future.

My patient was finally happy with her smile. All in all, it took dedicated teamwork between myself, the ceramist, orthodontist, and periodontist to exceed her expectations. 

Replacing a failed restoration starts with a careful examination of the patient’s needs, desires, and current oral health. My patient in this case presented with a six unit anterior bridge, decay, and many esthetic issues. After an esthetic evaluation and comprehensive exam, it was time to move on to treatment planning.

Failed Restoration: Treatment Plan

To treatment plan this case, I relied on an advanced facially-generated treatment planning system for communicating with the rest of the team. Communication is essential to a reliable outcome.

First, a diagnostic work-up was generated. Then, the interdisciplinary team together developed a final treatment plan and sequence, with the incisal edge position of the upper right central as reference.

We chose orthodontic extrusion of the upper teeth to handle proclination in the anterior and the gingival discrepancy. Additionally, we treatment panned the maxillary right canine for over-extrusion by 2 mm. This was done to achieve adequate restorative ferrule through crown lengthening, not to mention re-treatment endodontic therapy with post and core.

We talked about implant therapy, but ultimately it was not a workable solution. Root proximity on the upper right and the gingival tissues meant it wasn’t ideal as a first option. For the final treatment, we decided on placing a six unit anterior bridge. I then discussed the outcome with the patient and she decided conservative therapy for the posterior esthetics of direct composite veneers was best. This enabled us to create consistent contour and shade.

Next up was the lab, which made a pre-orthodontic wax-up based on periodontal surgery and planned tooth movement. I gave them the proper information by using PowerPoint and digital photography with the proposed tooth positions. After this, the post and core endodontic re-treatment was done for the upper right canine.

To be continued…

What’s your approach to treatment planning? 

A comprehensive exam is the first step in a long line of decisions that can end in case success or failure. For this case, my patient presented with a litany of problems and dental concerns.

Failed Restoration: Patient History

When I first encountered the patient, she had a six unit anterior bridge with temporary cement. She came to my practice because she was unhappy with how her dental work looked and was interested in a permanent restoration that would truly suit her goals.

She had a checkered dental history beginning with orthodontic treatment for a diastema between the maxillary centrals and a left maxillary lateral that fractured down to the root and had to be removed. After a FPD was placed for the tooth removal, her diastema reopened and the right maxillary was also lost to fracture.

That wasn’t even it for the patient’s woes. She was given a bridge that made her very unhappy and also had to have endodontic therapy on the upper right canine. Despite multiple placements, the restoration was never to her liking.

Esthetically, the patient wanted to remedy her uneven gingival margin, the length of the upper right canine, the relative size of laterals and centrals, and the color match. The latter was difficult to remedy because of tetracycline staining from her childhood. Finally, she was also displeased with the thick feeling of the bridge.

All of this together painted a picture of a patient in need of serious help.

Failed Restoration: Evaluation & Exam

My esthetic evaluation confirmed many of her concerns. I completed it intraorally and with diagnostic photographs. The patient presented with tooth proportion asymmetries, inadequate tooth display at rest on one central, an uneven incisal plane, and gingival discrepancies.

Her comprehensive exam revealed normal TMD joints, but also showed posterior wear. She had muscle pain and headaches yet no muscle tenderness. I put her on six weeks of appliance therapy, which led to the discovery that she had a habit of ‘power wiggling.’ I was then able to obtain an accurate centric relation bite record.

I removed the anterior bridge for radiography of the abutments. It became clear that her maxillary right canine had a lot of decay and inadequate ferrule.

To be continued…

Like with any big purchase or expensive commitment, it’s not surprising patients would want to try on a new smile before going all in. You wouldn’t expect someone to purchase a sports car without first riding it around the dealership, would you?

Think of your cosmetic treatment as a high-end experience and your patients will too. Even the most hesitant spenders will be much more interested in moving forward if they’ve gotten a taste of how beautiful their smile really can be. This is where the ‘trial smile’ comes in.

Cosmetic Case Acceptance: Let Patients Try Their Smile

There’s no need to feel daunted by the process of creating a trial smile. Patients want to find a dentist who will offer them the kind of care they feel they deserve and who are willing to give them exactly what they want. You’d be surprised how hard it can be to find someone who will listen to a patient’s expectations instead of delivering what they personally feel is best.

With esthetics, the patient should have the primary say. Invite your patients who have given indications of wanting cosmetic treatments to communicate their preferences in a very tangible manner. All you have to do is first conduct a co-discovery appointment complete with high-quality digital images and an occlusal exam as well. Then, temporarily put composite on their unprepared teeth.

With this strong foundation already in place, your patient can see the potential outcome of smile design. When you pitch a trial smile to them, you can even call it a ‘demo.’ If the patient loves what they see, it’s no problem to move on to a diagnostic wax-up using a model of their demo smile.

What case acceptance techniques do you find most effective? We’d love to know your thoughts in the comments section below!

Photo courtesy of Matt Roberts CDT, CMR Laboratory.

The Aesthetics Course taught by Matt Roberts, CDT, Dr. Frankie Shull, Dr. Susan Hollar, Dr. JA Reynolds and Mr. Michael Roberts is just the place to learn to use digital technology to help patients want an aesthetic makeover.

When a car breaks down, the way we choose to have it repaired says a lot about how much we value our vehicle. A similar phenomenon occurs with dental care. 

In part 2 of this series about how we see a fix versus a valued service-based relationship, Dr. Kelly dives back into an experience that made him reflect on the dental profession. Keep reading for the rest of his story:

A Car Service Analogy: Obligation, Expense, or Experience

Coincidently, many days I use the analogy of cars to taking care of teeth with my patients. We wear away the surfaces of our teeth similarly to how tires age. We pay for maintenance and parts with an equal financial obligation and expense.

When we have to start over and restore our vehicle (or get a new one), sometimes it costs the same as major treatment we could have done for our teeth. Sometimes the auto investment is inconvenient and urgent. Often, if we choose, it is predictable and pleases us. We find ways to pay for it.

Individuals always seem to find ways to pay for the things they value. We choose our own experiences whether we know it or not. I invite my patients to consider experiencing dental care in my practice similarly to the good experience I have had with reliable and well-maintained cars.

The business card for my practice has three tag words on it: Restorative, Comprehensive, and Esthetic. I’ve been told that the meaning of these descriptors is too obscure for new patients to understand. Why not be like the dentist down the street and just say “Cosmetic” or “Family Dentistry”?

I believe every opportunity I have to help patients experience each of these focused goals for our patient care enriches the dentistry I can provide them. So many in our patient family have learned through these experiences exactly what these words mean.

To be continued …

A patient presented to my practice with upper and lower implant hybrids and a long history of fracturing. I myself struggled with needing to replace her dentures regularly up until the point I decided something had to change.

Parafunction, Occlusion, and a Low Smile Line

The patient clearly needed some type of intervention. I looked at mounted models and evaluated her history of extreme parafunction to determine what we should do next. She had been restored in her hybrids with canine guidance and relatively steep anterior guidance. In light of all these factors, I recommended resetting the upper hybrid, opening her vertical, and both shallowing and balancing her occlusion.

These adjustments would hopefully make a big difference in her ability to maintain dentures for longer periods of time. There wasn’t much space to open vertical, but with the little we had we managed to lengthen the time between fractures from months up to once a year. That was a huge achievement on its own, but we knew we could do more. We had also made her an occlusal appliance that went over her upper hybrid. She consistently wore it, which was beneficial.

I shared this story with Wiand of Wiand lab and he was able to give me an important breakthrough. He asked me how high her smile line was and I told him it was very low. He had an idea that made all the difference. We took upper and lower impressions of the hybrids, bite records, facebow, fixture level impression on the upper arch, and gathered shade information.

Wiand lab removed everything from the original bar. Then, I had them send the entire case to Gold Dust Dental Lab. There, they waxed the upper to full contour over the bar. After this, the case was returned to Wiand, where an injection-molded composite was used to fabricate a one-piece upper over the patient’s original bar.

This seems to have finally done it for keeping my patient out of the dental chair. No maintenance has been necessary since. By relying on the advice of my fantastic partners in both dental labs, I was able to help a tricky patient. The lesson here is that patients who are hard on their teeth will be hard on restorations. Similarly, implants aren’t going to magically resolve issues for occlusally high-risk patients.

It’s impossible to go through a dental career without continuously encountering cases that challenge our clinical skills. Nor do I think that would be a good thing, as stagnation and complacency can lead down a slippery path to less optimal dental care. Even an expert has something more to learn.

The case I’m going to discuss here is a perfect example of why collaboration is so important in the dental practice. No matter how much I think I know about the techniques for tricky restorations, I’m always surprised by how much there truly is left to understand or adjust.

It’s important to rely on our peers and lab partners for case breakthroughs and insights. They can see things from a different perspective and give you exactly what you need to provide an exceptional outcome for patients. Even just the act of talking through impressions on a patient’s circumstances can lead to unexpected realizations.

A Case of Fracture, Wear, and Parafunction

This case frustrated me for quite a while before I understood how to solve it. The patient presented with upper and lower implant hybrids from another dentist. An examination revealed the problem she had visited my office for, which was fracturing of the upper right lateral denture tooth.

She was no stranger to the irritation of fractures. She shared with me that she had a long history of wearing down and fracturing her teeth. I was immediately interested in taking the time to understand the cause of this consistent fracturing.

The patient had multiple single unit implants placed for replacement of individual teeth. Her condition then worsened to the point where she had her remaining teeth removed. Implants were used for dentures with locator attachments, but this didn’t last long. The problem persisted and resulted in the need for more implant placements.

Upper and lower hybrids were created, yet still she went through 4-5 replacements of upper lateral and canine denture teeth. After seeing me, she and I had to replace upper anterior denture teeth several times over the course of a year. That meant removing the hybrid and replacing the screws each time.

To be continued …