> Are there any long-term follow up publications?
> We have attempted to publish papers in leading journals, but have repeatedly encountered resistance to this innovative idea from “The Establishment”. Dental industry perferes to sell simple titanium screw type variations at the price of 200 Euros (a middel class cellphone!) and industry recruited experts simply prefere to make money with risky and costly operations and love to teach confusing drill sequences and fill guide lines.
Why not make the paper available anyway, like on arxiv.org?
And in my experience dentists are really pretty open to innovation, especially 3d scanning and machining. Most recently I got a grinding guard and instead of taking an impression my dentist actually used a Danish scanner that pieced together a couple of hundred individual photos.
For example, it strongly implies at several points that the dental association has a conspiracy to keep patients using less safe technology because it leads to recurring surgeries:
> No one can argue against this logical access to immediate implantology.
> Surgeons like simple titanium screws because they mean more surgery. More surgery means more money.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13361392#13362425
I'd be curious to hear lancewiggs's views on this tech.
But yes, bioRxiv would be a good idea!
To answer some of the naysayers: this is definitely not a quack treatment. The CEO is unconventional, to be sure, but the patient always comes first.
Just to address any lingering doubt: I'm a recipient of this implant, so yes: first hand experience, dogfooding, etc.
AMA!
BioImplant is one of those truly disruptive technologies: a new paradigm. It's interesting (as a HN reader) to see such a tech story unfold in 'real time'.
The biggest obstacle so far has been to foster awareness of this treatment option via popular media (ie. an article in an English-language newspaper/magazine). The dental world is fixated on simple screw type implants, which are costly, unnatural, and very rarely satisfactory.
Sure, but when "BioImplant™ is only suitable for an immediate implant (where extraction and implantation are part of the same procedure). You must already have a fresh tooth socket" traditional implant is the only way : (
The implant is milled from a 3D scan of the extracted tooth. It's very much an artisan process, which we're hoping to make entirely digital.
http://www.bioimplant.at/pictures/
That's just my impression though. :)
I don't think anyone knows potential issues with this one, except that they sound better. Current implants last from 10-25 yrs sometimes and are the best solution. This has potential to provide even better one.
There have been 5-10 year follow-ups, no issues at all. In particular, the use of zirconia has proven to be as effective (and much more esthetic) than titanium.
The real savings come later: there's no subsequent treatment to deal with infections (peri-implantitis) or other complications.
BioImplant is basically 'fit and forget'.
HN has a pretty open submission mechanism, and gets all kinds of nifty stuff submitted here that people could find interesting.
It's not a call for "Hackers" (of the evil system cracking kind, etc) to do anything nasty with them.
Edit: corrected the country
I would totally be game to go to Vienna, provided I can pay for procedure (well and need one). Implants, the ones with screw are supposedly one of the most durable ways to fix your tooth.
