Keep in mind that prior you suggested (to Dogmatix) I was not conversant in matters of trademarks and patents.
Well, let me politely disagree with you. But at least we can agree to disagree.
So, you are disagreeing you made the following statement?
I think statements like kavan's about trademarking are based on wrong premises on trademarks and patents.
Neither here nor there though.
Good for you. Finding the patent is no a difficult thing to do, and, to start with, its drawings are shown in a couple of videos of that playlist, and Google is a good search engine.
Not difficult to just find. Just some effort to screen shot diagrams and explain how to use it to look for other patents of similar art and/or citations. As I noted in my post, I SPECIFICALLY looked OUTSIDE of his video links. In my past posts, it's probably quite palpable that part of the issue I have as to pursuit of information about DO is that it often resolves to links to IMDO. So, I guess we can agree that when it comes to MDO, I look OUTSIDE of videos about IMDO.
I only brought the TM thing in the disclosures stated in my first message not no make any point, just because when I searched for IMDO messages I read some comments in other threads on licensing and franchising. TM doesn’t not impede any research or forbids other surgeons to do it, or force patients. But I think it is for the good of the patients to be able to know if their surgeon is endorsed by the rest of the surgeons doing IMDO.
Undoubtedly, there was some confusion about exact terminology; 'licencing' or 'franchising'-- or something else-- that would be applicable to a collection of doctors having permissions to use the term; 'IMDO'. For example, there was a big Franchise called (TMed); 'LifeStyle Lift' and only those who were part of it could use the term. Yet the technique used to do it (purse string suture) was nothing novel and something in past common use.
I'm quite aware that there would be absolutely no preclusion for a doctor to do MDO where the cut was between the molars. For example they could say: 'We do MDO and use either a cut behind OR between the molars depending on the specific case.' But I'm a loss (or just not clear on) what kind of endorsement a doctor, already conversant in MDO, would need in the event he/she purchased the exact distractor of the patent design (assuming the product is available for purchase and no controls exist as to which doctors can purchase) and used as such an option.
Are you suggesting that a patient pursuing MDO from a doctor conversant in MDO who offered options of 2 cuts; one between the molars and one behind them and used Coceancig's distractor for the former would need to know if the doctor had an ENDORSEMENT from Coceancig and associates?
You did not find any paper (there is no scientific article published yet, although a two or three articles wrote for the general public had been made available)
You just found the abstracts of a few talks on IMDO that were given by Paul and other friends at the ICOMS 2019 (Rio de Janeiro, a few month ago)...
LOL, this is veering into quibbling about SEMANTICS or finding some in-germane technical error where I found the abstracts of things that were not actually 'papers' and called what I found such. OK. So I didn't find 'papers'. But the SALIENT point is that I mentioned that in the process of looking for published papers what I found. Salient point being I did NOT find any material mentioning IMDO for ADULTS but ONLY mentions limited to use on CHILDREN and ADOLESCENTS. Other salient point was I did DUE DILIGENCE to LOOK for material (outside of his YT channel and website) about mention of use for ADULTS and found NO mention of such.
*Due Diligence. I'm using in context of looking for material where mention was made (to perhaps peer group) about process being used on adults and doing so BEFORE I said on here the process very much looked to be limited to children/adolescents or those in the growing stage.
So, I guess what we can AGREE on is that he does NOT have any peer reviewed papers about IMDO on ADULTS.
Of course, they need to do their own research and make their own decision, and it is great that they have all that information here so they can compare. And I do provide all that information during my consultations and encourage that attitude on my patients, too.
Do you think experience, skills, training on postop management and preop planning... knowing the involved orthodontic treatment and having access to the specific set of instruments are not necessary to perform a correct IMDO and prevent complications?
Surgery sounds so easy sometimes... no offense.
You know, I also went through the same process you are experiencing now when I tried to reverse engineer the IMDO protocol.
No offense taken.
Sergio, just to make clear, critiques of mine having to do with IMDO (in adults) were in reference to Coceancig's presentation. This would have nothing to do with how you communicate with your patients or those reading your website. I have no doubt that you would be very forthright in all your consults. When I initially checked your website, it was in process of approving your membership. I didn't seek it out for IMDO stuff, nor do I recall people bringing your name or website to the fore here on JSF. Nonetheless, you're welcome here, you seem like great guy even though I butt horns. (I am year of the goat in Chinese calendar.)
As to experience with the device (or any device with similar aim) and/or capacity to use it along with post op management and pre-op planning, preventing complications etc., of course I think those things are important and since I don't do surgery, I have no pre-conceived notions as to if this type of procedure (or any other) is easy vs. difficult other than what surgeons relay.
It's just that I would not deem by default that a doctor already conversant in MDO, who had this particular distractor adapted to making cut between molars would be incapable of using it to good effect in the absence of some kind of endorsement from Coceancig. As I said earlier, a doctor conversant in MDO could have option to have a device for cut behind molars and one suitable for cut between them (assuming the latter is not limited to only those approved by Coceancig). As to TMs, such a doctor would not even have to use the term; 'IMDO'. The operative term for what he's doing would be; 'MDO' and from there, the mention of 2 types of options for cuts; one behind molars and one between, depending on the case. One case could call for a big space between the teeth to avoid extraction if lower teeth had to be pushed back later down the line. Another case might not and instead need to avoid a big space between the teeth to have to close.
In closing, it looks like ADULTS would prefer an option of MDO (with or without prefix of 'I') over BSSO. There just needs to be more clarity on the websites YT channels--what ever--about that and also more 'papers' (peer reviewed academic articles) where adult applicability is the topic matter.
