Molestrip you're amazing. I do think though you have to take a leap of faith at some point.
I don't disagree the problem is the 9mo of torture leading up to it. This would be easier if it was one of those things where you could make a decision and be done the next day. I also think we're better off not knowing this crap so I don't spend the next 30+ years worrying about it. Too late for me but I often tell other people this. They never believe me but most of them fail to reach this point and are forced to accept some ignorance lol.
I am pretty confident HA from coral has very low complications. As far as predictable aesthetic results that's what I'm not sure about.
You are correct. As I said, it's been used for a long time and mostly has good results and that's the reason it's still used for some applications. It's not like the alternatives are risk free either. From what I've read, surgeons used to use it for augmentations as well but I saw some reports about them being removed because patients were unhappy with them, reasons not well cited. Best guess, they didn't look good. That's what Dr Eppley told me as well, they like implants because they provide the best results.
One question though, HA from coral either blocks or granules that doesn't resorb when placed as only augmentation does it? I was told it does not.
It's not the placement which determines this but the processing. HA is naturally resorbable because, like they say, it's naturally found in bone. Manufactures heat it up to high temperatures, called sintering, to prevent this from happening. That makes the result predictable. HA has a density comparable to cancellous bone so it's a good substitute where that is needed. That's where most of the living part of bone is so it's a good graft choice in places where bone needs to be reconnected. For augmentation you may want something closer to corticol bone, which is higher density. Perhaps some day we'll simply cut out the old piece of bone and replace it with a new piece grown in a lab.
