Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-05-16, 11:45:19 | version 1.38.0
INTERVIEW with — Dr. Goran Benic In 2002, Goran Benic graduated with a DMD from the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and received his doctor medicinae dentium (Doctor of Dentistry) from the same university. In 2016, he obtained the venia legendi (permission to teach as a Privatdozent) for reconstructive dentistry and oral implantology from the University of Zurich. He is a member of the Swiss Society of Reconstructive Dentistry and the Swiss Dental Association. Q: As a prosthodontic specialist, what is your main goal for a successful treatment? A: The answer relates to my role as a prostho dontist and dentist and to the med- ical aspects as a doctor. Basically, for each case, the following aspects, according to importance, are always the same: a healthy oral health situation, function and finally esthetics. The most important thing is to have a happy patient. Generally, when I approach a case, to reach the goal of sat- isfying the patient’s desires, it is very im- portant to define individual needs, which differ from case to case and from patient to patient. The key is to take one’s time, especially in the beginning. Interview and listen to the patient and involve the patient in the treatment plan, especially in cases with high esthetic demand, since esthetics is subjective and the perception of esthet- ics differs from person to person. Q: What do you do to present the case and treatment options to your patients? A: Photography is of course always used in the digital part, but in this part, I use the analog method, either by drawing and ex- planations on the computer or notes on a piece of paper or tablet. The digital key in terms of smile design is not as important. The most important item for me is the mock-ups. Generally, for the second appointment, I prepare mock-ups that are inserted into the patient’s mouth. This is the best possible diagnostic and the most important tool to show to the patient what can be done. This is also associated with a great deal of emotion, in this initial phase. Of course, there are new possibilities with digital smile design tools and so on, but personally I prefer to do something in the patient’s mouth so that he or she can touch it and see it in the mirror. Q: What is your opinion on minimally invasive therapy? A: In general, minimally invasive therapy in surgery has been around for many years in dentistry. It was made possible through the use of digital scans, guided surgery for flapless procedures and some others. These were important tools for 3-D diag- nostics, which is very important today. We can no longer think about dentistry with- out 3-D diagnostics, but minimally invasive therapy in terms of flapless surgery was not as revolutionary, since the indications for such therapy are relatively restricted. Q: If you had to decide on an advanced im- plant surgical technique, which one would it be and why? A: It’s not really possible to choose one technique because the field of implant dentistry is so diverse—keeping in mind that any procedure that allows us to per- form minimally invasive therapy in implant treatment is always my choice. Everything that reduces invasiveness is the key not only for comfort but also for efficiency. For example: I’m a big fan of the ridge pres- ervation procedure; I prefer any type of procedure that reduces the need for major bone grafting. As for immediate protocols, the conservative approach is not used very often in some countries. For an immediate implantation protocol, we need a clear in- dication for the posterior region. This is a good solution for a prosthetic indication. For the esthetic regions, immediate implantation protocols are not completely predictable when it comes to esthetics. Overall, any type of procedure using inva- sive methods should not be used. Q: Implant biomaterials can be essential for the long-term success of implants. What is your opinion, and which ones do you prefer? A: In the past decades, things have changed. In the beginning, it was advocat- ed that good biomaterials or good bone substitutes need to be completely re- placed by new bone. In the meantime, things have changed since the observation that biomaterials that are completely re- sorbable and are replaced by bone are 26 — issue 2018 Digital Workflow in Esthetics Interview