Re: Crown falls out for a good reason, right...?
- From: rick <riclanders@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:55:03 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 27, 5:43 pm, rick <ricland...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A year and a half ago I got a crown for tooth #8.
Two weeks ago the crown fell out and my new dentist told me the stump
had decayed so bad that the only option was a root canal and post for
the new crown.
The new dentist also informed me the original crown had fallen out
because I'm missing teeth 28,29,30, 31; thus, #8 is bearing more force
when chewing than it should.
My question is since 28,29,30,31 where missing when I had #8 crowned,
why wasn't I informed by the original dentist that the crown might not
hold because of the lower missing teeth?
Had he told me, I'd have avoided the root canal and post subsequently
required on #8 and used the money instead for a bridge for 28-31.
ric
by the way, I should add that when the crown fell off, it was in
perfect condition; that is, it was not fractured.
Apparently, the abutment had decayed to a point where it could no
longer support it.
To me this suggest the missing lower teeth only played a minor role in
the crown falling off.
ric
.
- References:
- Crown falls out for a good reason, right...?
- From: rick
- Crown falls out for a good reason, right...?
- Prev by Date: Crown falls out for a good reason, right...?
- Next by Date: Re: Partials or Bridge
- Previous by thread: Crown falls out for a good reason, right...?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
