1
Aesthetics / Re: Opinions on my plan
« Last post by kavan on Today at 02:56:23 PM »You cite Arnett's analysis within this string along with a diagram of 'FAB' and AS IF you understand it to claim or otherwise imply your surgeon is using a DISSIMILAR method; one that does NOT utilize Arnett's TVL and most of your concerns stem from that claim. It turns out you failed to draw a straight vertical passing through the Sn point where Arnett's TVL is found on your surgeon's proposal.
His analysis called 'FAB' (Face, AIRWAY and bite) optimizes those 3 things, usually via CCW along with MMA. So, if you wanted to know if your surgeon was using the Arnett analysis with it's associated TVL in planning, the fact that he was using CCW along with MMA should have been a clue. Another clue would be to look at where Arnett passes a TVL (through the Sn point) and pass one on your surgeon's proposal. But AFTER citing Arnett's TVL and having access to a diagram that showed where it is drawn and where the soft tissue profile is RELATIVE to it, you lacked the capacity to relate to it or apply the information correctly. Instead your 'concerns' revolved around nothing other than how DISCONNECTED you were and so disconnected that you failed to observe that your surgeons proposal was SIMILAR to Arnett's, if not SAME as Arnett's TVL. That is a very BAD conceptual disconnect to have.
Included is a screen shot of your surgeon's proposal with Arnett's TVL drawn on it along with your 'concerns' that your surgeon is NOT using same or similar FAB optimization. It shows that the concerns you express about your surgeon using dissimilar optimization aesthetic guidelines are baseless. Clear as day, he used same/similar as does Arnett. The concern here is your inability to see he is.
Also, keep in mind that the risk of your surgeon 'over advancing' you with his decision OR the risk of his under advancing you with your 'guidance' at the helm of the decision is reduced to 0 if you have NO SURGERY.
------
His analysis called 'FAB' (Face, AIRWAY and bite) optimizes those 3 things, usually via CCW along with MMA. So, if you wanted to know if your surgeon was using the Arnett analysis with it's associated TVL in planning, the fact that he was using CCW along with MMA should have been a clue. Another clue would be to look at where Arnett passes a TVL (through the Sn point) and pass one on your surgeon's proposal. But AFTER citing Arnett's TVL and having access to a diagram that showed where it is drawn and where the soft tissue profile is RELATIVE to it, you lacked the capacity to relate to it or apply the information correctly. Instead your 'concerns' revolved around nothing other than how DISCONNECTED you were and so disconnected that you failed to observe that your surgeons proposal was SIMILAR to Arnett's, if not SAME as Arnett's TVL. That is a very BAD conceptual disconnect to have.
Included is a screen shot of your surgeon's proposal with Arnett's TVL drawn on it along with your 'concerns' that your surgeon is NOT using same or similar FAB optimization. It shows that the concerns you express about your surgeon using dissimilar optimization aesthetic guidelines are baseless. Clear as day, he used same/similar as does Arnett. The concern here is your inability to see he is.
Also, keep in mind that the risk of your surgeon 'over advancing' you with his decision OR the risk of his under advancing you with your 'guidance' at the helm of the decision is reduced to 0 if you have NO SURGERY.
------