ADA Code 6069 - Abutment Support Retainer - Which Graphic!!??

[tyson_edwards]

Hello SoftDent Community,

I was hoping you could answer an um, disagreement Jeremy and I are having around the office. And yes, it's regarding ADA ode 6069 - Abutment Support Retainer.

 

ADA Code 6069 - Abutment Support Retainer
Currently we are displaying this graphically as a retainer.

Jeremy really thinks this should be a bridge. I say crown makes more sense or even leave it alone as a retainer.

Now the discussion is getting a little out of hand. There is a lunch on the line for the winner and we need YOU to help us get to the correct truth - which we know will be the crown

Our question is as follows:

Crown: If we change to crown, would you only chart the pontic in the middle and assume the two next to it are retainer?

Bridge: You would chart all three teeth as the bridge? 

Retainer: Is it fine the way it is?

Help us get to the bottom of this please!

The tensions are running high and I'm in need of some BBQ! 

Thanks for your help

[mdunham]

To chart Abutment Retained Implant PFM crowns
(6069- an Abutment (and implant supported) PFM crown)
It would be ideal to chart them as Retainer-Pontic-Retainer, as Is a more accurate description of Tx.

Example: imagine the staff needing to prep an OP when a pt makes emergency appt for a loose crown. There are many steps involved for clinical staff; setup, chair time, etc—. When indicated correctly within chart a staff member could easily prepare for a loose implant/abutment retained bridge, than simply an implant/Abut retained crown. It’s a simple example, and I am sure there are many others. Simply stated, it would be beneficial to display connected, and not to assume anything.

My vote- Abutment-Pontic-Abutment (Bridge) and in this case an implant and implant abutment retained Bridge.

[juriz]

Does this mean I win?

[mdunham]

I would have to say that you win. Assistants and hygienists need to know what tools they would need for cleaning, difference in setups, additionally you would not be referring back to Films or mouth to understand that the units diplayed are a bridge.

[tyson_edwards]

I definitely agree that ideally it should be a mixture of both i.e. Retainer-Pontic-Retainer.

I guess I am trying to figure out how the actual mechanics of it should work in SoftDent because the need of multiple graphics and possibly multiple clicks for one charted recording. I'm not sure there is anything in SD currently that models this behavior.

So once you select the code, the it can go a couple of ways:

1. The expectation could be you select the middle tooth, the pontic, the sofware automatically puts a retainer on the teeth on each side of the pontic.

• There might have to be alerts here if there are already things on those adjacent teeth that would not allow this to be charted on them.
• I think this would be easiest from a user perspective

2. You could click the first tooth as the retainer, then click the second tooth as the pontic, then you click the third tooth as a retainer or maybe the software automatically adds the third tooth for you.

• requires a series of clicks, each click would be a different graphic than the previous click. 
• Would be nice to be able to undo during this process!

@mdunham, @juriz Am I making this more complex than it has to be?

[mdunham]

Not Complex at all. I do think most clinical staff chart Retainer-Pontic-Retainer. So, perhaps: click on Retainer tooth- then Pontic-retainer (Maybe a double click or drag to make SD connect the items together.????

To show 6069 accurately- it might be best to also chart the abutment over implant. Therefore the chart would perhaps show- 6010,6057, 6069.

Implant (screw retained/no abutment) would be 6010 and 6076.

In the perfect world we would be able to chart abutment & implant retained Retainer prosths from those of Implant (screw retained) Retainer crowns as it effects scheduling- ordering of supplies, etc.
I’m a perfect world . 🤣🤣🤣

[tyson_edwards]

Thanks for your input. I just wanted to make sure I was on the right path!

[mbrown]

It seems there isn't a graphic that displays in the chart for 6069. What's the fix that you illustrated above?

[tyson_edwards]

Hi, we haven't been able to get the fix for this into a released version yet. When we do, I will update this post.

@mdunham is there a workaround for this currently?