Second Opinion: Implants

It may be one tooth, one implant, or a whole mouth of work. All of it belongs here.

Choose what you are noticing. Each one says what it can mean, whether it is part of settling in or worth having looked at, and where on this site it is explained in full.

A single implant placed in the late teens can look very different twenty years later. The jaw and face keep changing; the implant does not move with them. Gum recedes, the crown sits higher than its neighbours, threads begin to show, or the bone around it starts to go.

Fixing it properly is rarely a matter of a new crown. It usually means rebuilding the gum, the bone and the tooth, and making all three match the teeth beside them. Before any of that, the questions that matter are why it failed, what caused it, and how to do it right this time so it does not fail again.

When an upper-jaw reconstruction fails, it fails in one of these five places.

Three of those five places, shown on real patients: what the failure looks like, what was done about it, and the result.

Food that packs under the bridge. A lisp that never went away. Gums that bleed where the teeth meet them. A palate that feels like a mouthful of plastic. None of these are about the implants. They are about form: the shape of the prosthesis where it meets your lip, your gums, your tongue and your toothbrush. This is Dr. Mamaly Reshad's chapter on form, from the lecture he gives to dentists, written for the people who have to wear the result.

A full-arch prosthesis has to be strong, it has to hide the join between tooth and gum, it has to sit on implants that went where the bone allowed. Every one of those pulls on its shape. Thickness fights cleanability, a hidden seam fights a thin palate, an implant placed where the bone was fights an ideal emergence. The clinicians who built a prosthesis with form problems were usually solving a harder problem somewhere else. This is not a judgement on them. It is an account of what the shape has to achieve, so that if yours is failing you, the cause has a name.

Dr. Reshad plans form against five requirements. A prosthesis that meets four and misses one is a prosthesis the patient complains about.

These are not rare. They are the ordinary consequences of an undersurface that could not be cleaned, a bulk that was never thinned, or an implant exit that landed outside the tooth. The patient usually knows something is wrong. They often do not know it is the shape.

Bone and gum under an upper prosthesis remodel for years. A shape that fitted the tissue on the day of delivery can be sitting on a gap, or pressing a ridge, a decade later. That is why Dr. Reshad designs the tissue contact to be checked and adjusted, not sealed and forgotten.

Esthetic form starts with the incisal edge: how much tooth shows at rest, where it sits against the lip, the angle of the front teeth. From there come length, width, the gum line and the proportion of one tooth to the next. Dr. Reshad fixes all of this in a full-contour wax-up before any surgery, so the implants are placed to serve the teeth and not the other way round.

A prosthesis that was shaped after the implants went in has to accept wherever they exit. That is how teeth end up too long, too flat, leaning the wrong way, or with a screw hole through the front of an incisor.

Emergence is the profile a tooth makes as it leaves the gum. Natural teeth emerge from about 3 mm below the gum line, and that depth is what gives a crown its root-like neck and a gum its scalloped edge. Dr. Reshad plans the bone level so that every implant exit sits within the outline of the tooth it will carry, about 3 mm below the finished gum line. Too shallow and the tooth looks stuck on; too deep and the gum cannot be kept clean. Off to the side and you get the restorative shelf.

On the provisional, the contour just under the gum (the subcritical contour) is kept concave to give the tissue room to thicken, while the contour at the gum line (the critical contour) sets where the margin sits. The provisional is the tool that shapes the gum before the final is made.

Between the implants, the teeth are pontics: they have no root and no implant, and they rest on the gum. How they rest decides whether that gum stays pink and tight or red, swollen and sore. Prosthodontics has known the answer since Stein's work in the 1960s, and Zitzmann, Marinello and Berglundh confirmed it under the microscope in 2002: a convex, polished pontic in light contact with the tissue keeps healthy keratinised gum underneath it. A concave one does not.

A full-arch bridge is in the mouth for decades. The one daily test it has to pass is this: can a brush, floss or water flosser reach every surface that touches gum? Dr. Reshad applies the test to the provisional before the final is ever made, and he teaches patients how to pass floss under the bridge before they leave with it.

The enemies are the same every time: a concave or flat undersurface, an unpolished surface, a bulky flange that was added to hide a seam, and an implant exit outside the tooth that creates a shelf. Each one is a place bacteria live and a toothbrush does not go. Inflammation around implants (peri-implant mucositis, and in time peri-implantitis) is far more common under prostheses that cannot be cleaned, and the first treatment is often to reshape the prosthesis itself.

Every S you say is a thin jet of air pushed through a narrow channel just behind the upper front teeth, with the sides of the tongue braced against the palatal surfaces of the upper teeth. Change that channel and the S changes. A prosthesis that is thick behind the front teeth, or that carries a ledge of acrylic across the front of the palate, turns the S into a lisp or a whistle, and the tongue never quite learns its way round it.

Comfort lives in the same place. The tongue wants the shape it grew up with: a smooth, thin slope from the back of the front teeth into the palate, no steps, no ridges, no bulk. Dr. Reshad shapes the palatal contour on the provisional, has the patient read aloud with it in, and only then copies it into the final.

A quad-zygoma case: four zygomatic and two pterygoid implants, no grafting. The provisional was worn, cleaned, spoken with and adjusted. Only then was the definitive made, as a copy of a shape that had already passed every test.

The prosthesis comes out. Dr. Reshad looks at its underside, its palate and the gum it has been sitting on, and asks five questions.

Bring the prosthesis and the history. In one visit you will know which of the five jobs it is failing, and whether reshaping or remaking is the answer.

If you have been told there is not enough bone, that implants are not for you, or that a denture is all that is left, you may not have heard the whole story. Two areas of the face keep strong bone when the jaw has shrunk away: the cheekbone, and the plates at the very back of the upper jaw. Implants anchored there can hold fixed teeth, often without a bone graft and often on the day of surgery.

When upper teeth are lost, the bone that held them shrinks. Behind it, the sinus expands into the space. After years of missing teeth, a failed bridge or a loose denture, there can be too little bone left in the upper jaw to hold a conventional implant.

The traditional answer is grafting: build the bone back, wait months for it to heal, then place implants. For many patients that works well. For others it means a year or more of surgery, healing and temporary teeth, and some grafts do not take.

There is another way. The cheekbone and the bony plates at the back of the upper jaw stay dense and strong when the jaw itself has shrunk. Implants anchored there can support a full set of fixed teeth without rebuilding the jaw first.

Most people who find this page have already been through a lot. Teeth lost one by one. A denture that never felt like part of them. Treatment that cost a great deal and did not last. And then the words that close the door: there is no bone, there is nothing more we can do.

If that is you, being wary of one more dentist is reasonable. You should not have to take anyone's word for it, including ours. So the first visit is not a sales conversation. It is a diagnosis, and an honest answer.

Sometimes that answer is that fixed teeth are possible after all. Sometimes it is that a well-made removable option is genuinely the better choice for you. Either way, you will understand why, and you will hear it plainly.

A zygomatic implant is a long implant that starts where your teeth will sit and reaches up into the cheekbone, the zygoma. The cheekbone does not shrink when teeth are lost, so it gives a strong, stable anchor even when the upper jaw itself has very little bone.

Depending on what remains, a plan may use two zygomatic implants at the back with regular implants at the front, or four zygomatic implants with none in the jaw at all. The second approach is called a quad zygoma.

The path of each implant follows the shape of your own cheekbone and sinus wall, read from a 3D scan, rather than a fixed route. This anatomy-guided approach, known as ZAGA, keeps the implant head where the tooth needs it and protects the seal of bone and gum around it.

Most full-arch plans stop at the premolars, because the bone behind them is thin and the sinus sits low. The back teeth of the bridge then hang off the last implant, unsupported. That overhang is called a cantilever, and it is where many full-arch bridges start to fail: screws loosen, frameworks crack, implants are overloaded.

A pterygoid implant passes through the back of the upper jaw, behind the sinus, into the pterygoid plates, a column of dense bone at the base of the skull. It gives the bridge a support point at the molars, so the back teeth are held up from underneath instead of hanging in the air.

Instead of rebuilding bone first, the plan uses the strongest bone that is already there, working from the back of the jaw forward. Each letter is a place to anchor. If one site is not strong enough on the day, the next option takes over during the same surgery.

An implant in the cheekbone is only as good as the teeth it holds. Where the implants come out of the gum decides where the teeth can go, how the bite works, how your lip sits, how you speak, and whether you can clean underneath the bridge. Get that wrong and a perfectly placed implant still gives a poor result.

So every case is planned from the teeth backwards. The position of the front teeth, the smile line, the bite and the space for the bridge are set first, and the implants are placed to serve them.

The implants are placed by an experienced surgical specialist working from that plan, and Dr. Reshad designs, fits and maintains the teeth.

This kind of planning is one of many parts of prosthodontic training in full mouth reconstruction that are not taught in dental school. Dr. Reshad has more than thirty years of full-arch experience and has taught implant prosthodontics internationally.

She came to us after an All-on-4 elsewhere. Her jaw hurt, opening and closing was a daily struggle, and she did not like her smile. Four implants, clustered at the front, were carrying the whole arch. She needed the problem solved, not patched again.

Bring your X-rays, a plan you have been given, or simply your questions. You will leave with an honest answer, even if it is not the one you expected.

A chipped tooth on your bridge. A screw that keeps loosening. A piece that came off at the back. If you have fixed implant teeth and this sounds familiar, the implants are probably fine. What failed is the plan for how your jaw closes. This page explains how Dr. Mamaly Reshad builds that plan before any teeth are made, in the order he teaches it to dentists, and how he finds the cause when someone else's work has failed.

Every full-arch case has to get three things right: the biology (bone and gum), the esthetics (the smile) and the function (how the teeth meet). The longer Dr. Reshad practises, the more of his attention goes to function, because a beautiful prosthesis that fractures is a disaster the patient lives with, and a functional one buys the biology time and keeps the esthetics on the face.

The research says the same thing. Implants survive: above 95 percent at ten years. What fails is the prosthesis, and it fails mechanically: chipped veneers, loose screws, cracked frames. The common driver is overload, from long cantilevers, poor fit, grinding, and lost support at the back. Function is not the third circle. It is the one holding the other two up.

The first osseointegrated bridges went into edentulous lower jaws. Per-Ingvar Brånemark's first patient, in 1965, received fixtures in the front of the mandible, a cast framework and acrylic teeth: a stable base first, then the occlusion. The ten-year report came in 1977, the fifteen-year follow-up in 1981. Sixty years on, the sequence has not changed. Stabilise the lower jaw, then build the bite on it.

This is the sequence Dr. Reshad teaches and the sequence he uses on every patient. Foundation first. Then the levers. Then the occlusion.

Your lower jaw rests on three points: the two joints at the back, and the front teeth. Dr. Reshad calls it the inverted tripod. When all three are stable at the right height, the back teeth hold the bite open and the front teeth guide the jaw. Lose any leg and the whole structure shifts, and something has to take the load that the lost leg was carrying. That something is usually a tooth on your bridge.

When teeth have worn, drifted or been lost, the jaw closes into a collapsed, over-closed position and the muscles learn to hold it there. Build implant teeth into that position and you have built the failure in. Dr. Reshad adds four steps before any teeth are made. They take time, and they are easy to leave out under the pressure of a busy schedule. They are the difference between a bite you can find again and one you cannot.

A stable stop is a sharp lower edge meeting a defined shelf on the back of the upper tooth. Every incisor, and a solid stop on each canine. When those stops exist, the bite stays open at the right height. When they are missing, teeth migrate, the front overloads, and the bite closes down year by year.

Dr. Reshad also refuses “freedom in centric”: a broad, flat closing area where the patient cannot find where to bite. He builds a controlled centric: the back teeth hold firmly, the front contacts are slightly lighter, and a thin shim between the front teeth drags but does not tear. Guided, not overloaded.

This is the animation Dr. Reshad shows dentists. Watch what one poorly planned decision at the front does to the molars.

This patient arrived with a lower implant bridge whose back segments kept snapping off. The answer was at the front. Years of grinding had worn the upper front teeth down, the lower jaw had closed, and the vertical height was lost. With the height gone, the space at the back shrank until there was no longer room for teeth, acrylic and a framework. We measured 12.6 millimetres where a hybrid prosthesis needs 15 to 17. With that little room, the thin posterior segments were always going to be at risk.

That is how Dr. Reshad reads a failed case: not “the bridge is weak”, but “which leg of the tripod was lost, and where did the load go”. Here it went to the back, and the back broke.

A second opinion here looks past the bridge to the tripod it sits on. The questions are the same ones on this page, asked about your mouth.

Bring the bridge, the history and the radiographs if you have them. One visit, and you will know which leg of the tripod was lost and what it would take to rebuild on a base that holds.

Everyone looks at the front of the front teeth. Almost nobody looks at the back of them. Yet the back surface of the upper incisors is a ramp that your lower jaw rides on every time you chew, speak or grind, and its angle decides how much force every tooth in your mouth takes. Get it right and the teeth stay pretty for longer, the jaw is comfortable and nothing chips. Get it wrong and the prettiest teeth in the world start breaking. This is the part of the design that is always overlooked, and the part Dr. Mamaly Reshad spends the most time on.

When you slide your lower jaw forward or to the side, the lower front teeth travel along the inside surface of the upper front teeth. That surface is a ramp. As the jaw slides along it, the back teeth are lifted apart so they do not grind against each other. Dentists call this anterior guidance: the front teeth guide the jaw and protect the back teeth.

The angle of the ramp is everything. A steep ramp (a deep bite with the upper teeth hanging well down over the lowers) is a wall the jaw has to climb. The muscles work harder, the front teeth take a heavy sideways load, and sooner or later something gives: a chip, a loose screw, a cracked tooth, a sore jaw. A shallow, smooth ramp lets the jaw glide, keeps the back teeth apart with little effort, and spreads the force where it belongs.

Anterior guidance is never guessed and never left to the laboratory. It is built in four steps, and nothing becomes final until the patient has lived with it.

Dr. Reshad starts at the edge of the upper front teeth. How much tooth shows when the lips are relaxed tells him the length. The profile of the front face, checked from the side with the lips at rest and smiling, sets lip support and the start of the guidance: a labial face roughly 90 degrees to the biting plane is the starting point, then it is adjusted to the lip, to speech and to the shape of the jaws. Only when the front is right is the back surface designed, and the rule for the back is simple: as little vertical overlap as the bite allows, and a ramp that is shallow and smooth.

There is a trade-off he watches closely. Longer front teeth look younger, but a longer tooth is a longer lever, so it feels more force. When he makes the teeth longer he flattens the guidance to pay for it.

When the upper front teeth overlap the lower ones deeply and tightly, every forward or sideways movement of the jaw has to climb a steep wall of enamel or porcelain. That wall is the fence, and the force on the teeth that form it is high. Dr. Reshad does two things on every case where he can: he reduces the vertical overlap, and he flattens the angle the lower jaw rides on. The fence opens into a ramp. The back teeth still separate as the jaw glides, but gently, and the front carries a fraction of the load.

The research puts a number on it. Weinberg measured the force on the front teeth as the guidance angle changed: for every 10 degrees the ramp is flattened, the force applied drops by about 35 percent. Williamson and Lundquist showed with muscle recordings that a flatter guidance means the jaw muscles work less hard. Flatter is kinder, to the teeth and to the joints.

He arrived with his upper front teeth closed down over the lowers so far that they covered more than the whole lower tooth, against an ideal of 15 to 20 percent. None of his lower front teeth showed at rest. The fence was total: every movement ground enamel away and strained the jaw muscles. The bite was opened, the overlap reduced and the guidance flattened before anything was made final, then both arches were rebuilt at the new position. In the after photographs the lower teeth are visible, the front teeth meet on a shallow ramp, and the jaw ache has gone.

Before anything is made in porcelain, the length and profile are mocked up on models and in the mouth, and checked against three things: the lips at rest and smiling, the sounds F, V and S, and the plane of the back teeth. The lower front teeth are set too: they must not show more than about 3 mm against the resting lower lip, or the face reads as old and collapsed, and their edges must sit where they will meet the upper ramp cleanly.

This is the point where most problems are caught. A tooth that is a millimetre too long, a ramp that is a few degrees too steep, a lower edge that lands in the wrong place: all of it is cheap to change in a mock-up and expensive to change in zirconia.

The provisionals are the test drive. The patient wears them for weeks and uses them hard. Dr. Reshad checks where the lower teeth mark the ramp, adjusts the angle until the glide is smooth and the back teeth separate without effort, and listens to the patient. If the patient grinds at night, the provisional shows exactly where, and the design is changed before a single tooth is made in its final material.

Once the provisional guidance has passed, it is recorded. The path the lower teeth take along the ramp is captured on a custom incisal table (the old way, in resin on the articulator) or scanned (the contemporary way), and the laboratory builds the final teeth to that exact path. The final restoration therefore inherits a ramp the patient has already lived with, rather than one a technician guessed from a model.

That is the difference between a smile that looks good on delivery day and one that still looks good, and feels good, ten years on. The inside of the teeth is where that difference is made.

Worn lower front teeth are a common reason the guidance has gone. The lower edge has shortened and tipped back, so the upper tooth has nothing to guide, and if the upper is simply rebuilt thicker on its inside to reach the lower, the palate becomes bulky and the ramp steep. Dr. Reshad's rule is to share the contour: restore the lower incisors in height and bring them slightly forward, and add only a little to the inside of the uppers, so neither tooth has to carry the whole correction.

One check keeps it honest: the upper teeth must still dominate the smile. The lowers are brought back to where they belong, not beyond it.

Chipped edges, a tooth that keeps coming loose, a sore jaw in the morning, a bite that never felt settled. Before anything is repaired again, Dr. Reshad looks at the ramp.

Bring the history and the chips. In one visit you will know how deep the overlap is, how steep the ramp is, and whether it can be flattened on the teeth you have.

In a full mouth reconstruction on implants the teeth are the visible part. The frame underneath them decides how long they last, and it is the part almost nobody talks about. Dr. Mamaly Reshad, a prosthodontist now practising in Beverly Hills, has spent more than thirty years designing full-arch frameworks, helping to develop them, and following his own patients for decades to see what holds up. He knows what works, how to design it properly and how to make it last. This is how he chooses and builds the frame, written for the person whose mouth it is.

Dr. Reshad's involvement with full-arch implant frameworks goes back to the gold bars of the 1990s. In 2009 he published the component prosthesis in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry: a milled titanium bar carrying individual zirconia crowns, one of the first uses of CAD/CAM to correct badly angled implants. He is credited as its inventor, it is cited in textbooks, and clinicians around the world still make it. It was the state of the art, and at the time it was the right treatment.

What set him apart was what he did next: he followed it. Years of recalls on his own patients, and on the cases reviewed in the advanced prosthodontics programme at USC, showed that a design that looked right on the day could ask a great deal of maintenance by year ten. That is a lesson most clinicians never learn, because most never look back that far. He took it as the brief for everything since: not just a good design, but a design built for longevity.

Materials and techniques have improved enormously, and he has refined how they are used, with his master technical team, through every generation of framework. The result is that many of the reconstructions he has made are holding up as well as or better than the best lines on the survival graph below. That is the promise of this chapter: something that works for a long time, built on proper observation, an understanding of the science and the materials, and the right handling of them in the laboratory and at the chair.

In 2013 Dr. Reshad stood on a lecture stage and asked what evidence there was for the frameworks being sold for full-arch implant teeth. The answer was one line on a graph: the acrylic hybrid, and nothing for anything newer. In 2026 there are eight lines, and still only one of them runs past eight years. Every other material is being placed on the strength of two to five years of follow-up.

Reading that graph properly is a skill, and it is the one that separates a specialist from a brochure. He judges a material by the length of its line, not the height. He asks whether a study counted the prosthesis or just the implant, whether it counted repairs as failures, how many patients were still being followed when the line ended, and who paid for the study. A survival figure quoted without those answers is not evidence; it is marketing. Different designs fail at different rates, and the graph shows it, but only if you know which questions to put to it.

The other half of his evidence is his own observation. Years of following patients in the advanced prosthodontics programme at USC, where every case is reviewed and recalled, and more than thirty years of watching full mouth reconstructions in practice, his own and other people's: what wore, what chipped, what broke, and when. The literature tells him what has been measured. His recalls tell him what it looks like in a real mouth at year fourteen. Every full mouth reconstruction he builds rests on both.

Implants almost never break. What breaks is what sits on them, and it breaks in a pattern. Over three decades of examining full-arch work, his own and the many cases that come to him for a second opinion, Dr. Reshad has seen every version of that pattern. Once you can read it, you can see on the day of design whether a prosthesis will be back in the chair in five years, or still quietly working in fifteen.

When you are quoted a success rate for full-arch implant teeth, ask what was counted. Most studies count a prosthesis as surviving as long as it is still in the mouth. The teeth can be replaced, the porcelain repaired, the crowns recemented, and it still “survives”. Pooled reviews put the metal-acrylic hybrid at about 95% survival at ten years. One university clinic that counted every remake found only 52% of the same prosthesis still original at ten years. Forty-three points apart, for the same object.

Dr. Reshad's rule is simple: maintenance is failure. A full mouth reconstruction that keeps you coming back to the chair has not succeeded, whatever the paper says. By that measure, only one material comes close to the 95% benchmark at ten years, and the chart shows which.

Dense bone, a short lever and usually a denture on the other side make the lower jaw forgiving: an acrylic hybrid there wears flat over ten years and nothing breaks. The upper jaw is softer bone, a longer lever and the teeth that take every forward movement of the bite. The same acrylic bridge there sheds its front teeth. Both arches “survive”. Only one of them stays out of the chair. This is why Dr. Reshad does not use one material for both arches and does not quote one survival figure for a whole mouth.

Most failed full mouth reconstructions were chosen the other way round: the material first, and the mouth made to fit it. Very often it is the laboratory that dictates the material, because it is what they are comfortable making. They have never met the patient, they are not clinicians, and they do not carry the science or the responsibility for what happens at year ten. Sometimes the patient arrives having decided already, from an AI answer, a friend's experience or another dentist's offer. None of these is a design. Dr. Reshad scores every case against the same six questions and lets the answers rule materials out. There is usually more than one right answer. There are always wrong ones, and it is in the specialist's own interest to avoid them, because a prosthesis that comes back is his problem too.

Every full-arch implant prosthesis is one of four constructions. Each has a place; each has a failure it is known for. A patient choosing a full mouth reconstruction should be able to name which one they are being offered and why.

Monolithic zirconia is the material Dr. Reshad trusts most, and it is unforgiving of shortcuts. Every zirconia fracture he has examined broke one of these rules. They are set by the prosthodontist and checked before the prosthesis is accepted from the laboratory.

The frame can only be right if the teeth are in the right place first. In every full mouth reconstruction Dr. Reshad does, the finished prosthesis is designed on the articulator before the first incision: tooth position, bite height, lip support and restorative space are decided there. The implants are then placed to serve that design, and a fixed provisional, a copy of it, is delivered the same day. The final prosthesis copies what has already been proven in the mouth.

Her upper implant teeth had been declared finished. At rest they looked acceptable; the moment she smiled, the join between the prosthesis and her own gum was on show. The implants were sound. The design was not. The rebuild followed the order in this chapter: the smile line and tooth position settled on prototypes first, worn and tested in daily life, then copied into a final made to the framework rules. Every step is checked before the next begins.

Everything in this chapter comes down to one position. Monolithic zirconia, and monolithic zirconia bonded to a titanium frame, are the gold standard for full-arch implant teeth today, provided they are handled properly: the space measured, the connectors respected, the zirconia polished, the titanium bonded, the fit verified. Handled carelessly, the same materials break, and the breakages are blamed on the zirconia rather than on the design. The material is only as good as the hands that plan it.

You may be told something different. Acrylic teeth on a bar are still recommended, often, and the reasons sound sensible: the plastic is softer, so it is said to be kinder to the implants; it is lighter; it is easy to adjust at the chair. The evidence does not support the first claim, and the others cut both ways. Acrylic is porous, so it holds bacteria and stain against the gum and around the implants, where it matters most. It wears, so the bite that was set on the day drifts within a few years. And what is easy to adjust is easy to wear and easy to break, which is why acrylic hybrids need the most repairs of any design in the published record. It is cheaper to make. That is not the same as better for the patient. Where it still has a place, in a lower jaw against a denture or where budget decides, it should be chosen with that understood and its replacement planned from the start.

This is Dr. Reshad's philosophy today, and it is still evolving, because the materials are. He has been involved in the development and design of full-arch frameworks for more than thirty years, has followed his own cases for decades, and has studied each generation of material as it arrived, with the evidence, long clinical follow-up and a master technical team behind every decision. The frame he designs is there to protect your implants as much as to let you chew. None of this is new or fashionable. It is the long run: doing things properly, and making them last. Choose the right doctor, and the right material follows.

In one visit you will know which construction suits your mouth, which of the six questions decide it, and how it will be built so that it protects your implants and stands the test of time.

Dentistry is always challenging, and most dentists do the best they can. Some things are part of settling in and are fixed with small tweaks. If something is worryingly off, if you want reassurance that you are on the right path, or if you want to change provider, Dr. Reshad is here for that.

See a prosthodontist. Contact us to get your second opinion.