Bogacki & Bogacki DDS PC

Good Afternoon [redacted] ,Thank you for taking our call, As we discussed we put a lot of research into finding medical journals that addressed the the proper duration of crownsAs you will see crowns have life expectancy that even after year over 90% are still in placeI will include links to all of the medical journal as well as quotes from them to decrease your research time to validate our claimI have made all of my commentary in Helvetica fount in order to distinguish between what I have written and quoted material. This is the link that Russell Bogacki advertises the dental procedure on his website[redacted] Same Day CrownsThanks to the power of the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics) machine, our practice is able to create our crowns in-office and deliver them to you in the same day, saving you time and money.Here is a research paper outline CEREC and an overview of the procedure http://www.agd.org/media/121041/si_321.pdfThis article describes CAD/CAM technology used in dentistry and different restorative materials used in conjunction with adhesive cementation with particular attention given to the evolution of the CEREC system, as well as various ceramics developed for this systemAdvantages and limitations of materials and technique are also discussed. In the first such clinical trial, [redacted] et al evaluated [redacted] s Mark I inlays between September and August and reported only fractured inlays during that time.53 In 2002, [redacted] & [redacted] studied [redacted] Mark II inlays over years of clinical service and reported a 90.4% survival rate.54 In cases, failure was caused by ceramic fracture; in cases, by tooth fracture. A study by [redacted] & [redacted] evaluated 2,ceramic inlays and onlays in patients and reported a survivalrate of 95.5% at years.25 The majority of failures were caused by inlay fracture, tooth fracture, tooth extraction, and replacement for occlusal reconstruction.25 A series of articles evaluated 1,inlays and onlays placed in patients between and for up to yearsThe authors deter- mined a survival probability of 95% after years, 91.6% after years, and 90.0% at years; a survival rate comparable to conventional ceramic restorations.24,56-58The low failure rate of CEREC- manufactured restorations documents the reliability and the clinical predictability of such restorations.As you will notice in the excerpts from above in between 1985-in a study of crowns only two reported fracturesIn in over years of clinical service they has a 90.4% survival rate of at least yearsIn only 4% was the failure caused by Ceramic fracturing yet we have a 33% failed due to ceramic fracturing at years. In the study of there was a survival rate of 95.5% at yearsMultiple studies evaluating 1,inlays between and show a survival rates of 95% after years, 91.6% after years and 90.0% at years. [redacted] HOW LONG SHOULD RESTORATIONS LAST?A literature search was undertaken using Pubmed in the identification of relevant articles published from up to and including 2014.The following keywords were used: longevity, restorations, prosthodontics, crowns, all ceramic, zirconia, CAD/CAM, amalgam, composite, lifespan, survivalTwenty two articles have been included in this review, which covers both direct and indirect restorative materials as well as different manufacturing techniques.the hybrid composites performed the best with annual failure rates of 1.5-2%The CEREC system was mainly used for chairside fabrication of inlays and onlays with long-term studies showing adequate survival rates of 97% over five years, and 90% over years.2 The main reasons for failure of these restorations were the result of ceramic fracture (feldspathic porcelain), followed by fractures to the underlying supporting toothWith advances in technology, the CEREC system was capable of producing inlays, onlays, full and partial crowns with survival rates of 87% over seven yearsThe current CEREC system will manufacture veneers, short bridges, and implant abutments, with survival rates for these being 95-97% over five years.18As you will see I have included two studies that show the survivability rates up to yearscontained within this study are dozens of other studies as their source materialRather then writing you a endless email with dozens of pages I have included these a source material. As you see the work of Russell Bogacki does not even come close to the work of his peersAs you see above the survival rate is at least 90% at years and we have a failure rate of 66% at yearThis does not meet the standard of acceptable business practicesWhat makes this situation one that must be addressed is that when brought to his attention he refused to even provide a resolution. Thank you for your kind attention in this manner and we look forward to your sastifactory resolution to this matter. Regards,

Good Afternoon ***,Thank you for taking our call, As we discussed we put a lot of research into finding medical journals that addressed the the proper duration of crownsAs you will see crowns have life expectancy that even after year over 90% are still in placeI will include links to all
of the medical journal as well as quotes from them to decrease your research time to validate our claimI have made all of my commentary in Helvetica fount in order to distinguish between what I have written and quoted material. This is the link that Russell Bogacki advertises the dental procedure on his website.***Same Day CrownsThanks to the power of the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics) machine, our practice is able to create our crowns in-office and deliver them to you in the same day, saving you time and money.Here is a research paper outline CEREC and an overview of the procedure http://www.agd.org/media/121041/si_321.pdfThis article describes CAD/CAM technology used in dentistry and different restorative materials used in conjunction with adhesive cementation with particular attention given to the evolution of the CEREC system, as well as various ceramics developed for this systemAdvantages and limitations of materials and technique are also discussed. In the first such clinical trial, *** et al evaluated ***s Mark I inlays between September and August and reported only fractured inlays during that time.53 In 2002, *** & ** *** studied *** Mark II inlays over years of clinical service and reported a 90.4% survival rate.54 In cases, failure was caused by ceramic fracture; in cases, by tooth fracture. A study by *** & *** evaluated 2,ceramic inlays and onlays in patients and reported a survivalrate of 95.5% at years.25 The majority of failures were caused by inlay fracture, tooth fracture, tooth extraction, and replacement for occlusal reconstruction.25 A series of articles evaluated 1,inlays and onlays placed in patients between and for up to yearsThe authors deter- mined a survival probability of 95% after years, 91.6% after years, and 90.0% at years; a survival rate comparable to conventional ceramic restorations.24,56-58The low failure rate of CEREC- manufactured restorations documents the reliability and the clinical predictability of such restorations.As you will notice in the excerpts from above in between 1985-in a study of crowns only two reported fracturesIn in over years of clinical service they has a 90.4% survival rate of at least yearsIn only 4% was the failure caused by Ceramic fracturing yet we have a 33% failed due to ceramic fracturing at years. In the study of there was a survival rate of 95.5% at yearsMultiple studies evaluating 1,inlays between and show a survival rates of 95% after years, 91.6% after years and 90.0% at years. ***
HOW LONG SHOULD RESTORATIONS LAST?A literature search was undertaken using Pubmed in the identification of relevant articles published from up to and including 2014.The following keywords were used: longevity, restorations, prosthodontics, crowns, all ceramic, zirconia, CAD/CAM, amalgam, composite, lifespan, survivalTwenty two articles have been included in this review, which covers both direct and indirect restorative materials as well as different manufacturing techniques.the hybrid composites performed the best with annual failure rates of 1.5-2%The CEREC system was mainly used for chairside fabrication of inlays and onlays with long-term studies showing adequate survival rates of 97% over five years, and 90% over years.2 The main reasons for failure of these restorations were the result of ceramic fracture (feldspathic porcelain), followed by fractures to the underlying supporting toothWith advances in technology, the CEREC system was capable of producing inlays, onlays, full and partial crowns with survival rates of 87% over seven yearsThe current CEREC system will manufacture veneers, short bridges, and implant abutments, with survival rates for these being 95-97% over five years.18As you will see I have included two studies that show the survivability rates up to yearscontained within this study are dozens of other studies as their source materialRather then writing you a endless email with dozens of pages I have included these a source material. As you see the work of Russell Bogacki does not even come close to the work of his peersAs you see above the survival rate is at least 90% at years and we have a failure rate of 66% at yearThis does not meet the standard of acceptable business practicesWhat makes this situation one that must be addressed is that when brought to his attention he refused to even provide a resolution. Thank you for your kind attention in this manner and we look forward to your sastifactory resolution to this matter. Regards,

Good Afternoon [redacted],Thank you for taking our call, As we discussed we put a lot of research into finding medical journals that addressed the the proper duration of crowns. As you will see crowns have life expectancy that even after 10 year over 90% are still in place. I will include links to all...

of the medical journal as well as quotes from them to decrease your research time to validate our claim. I have made all of my commentary in Helvetica 15 fount in order to distinguish between what I have written and quoted material. This is the link that Russell Bogacki advertises the dental procedure on his website.[redacted]Same Day CrownsThanks to the power of the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics) machine, our practice is able to create our crowns in-office and deliver them to you in the same day, saving you time and money.Here is a research paper outline CEREC and an overview of the procedure http://www.agd.org/media/121041/si_321.pdfThis article describes CAD/CAM technology used in dentistry and different restorative materials used in conjunction with adhesive cementation with particular attention given to the evolution of the CEREC system, as well as various ceramics developed for this system. Advantages and limitations of materials and technique are also discussed. In the first such clinical trial, [redacted] et al evaluated 94 [redacted]s Mark I inlays between September 1985 and August 1987 and reported only 2 fractured inlays during that time.53 In 2002, [redacted] & [redacted] studied 200 [redacted] Mark II inlays over 10 years of clinical service and reported a 90.4% survival rate.54 In 8 cases, failure was caused by ceramic fracture; in 3 cases, by tooth fracture. A 2003 study by [redacted] & [redacted] evaluated 2,328 ceramic inlays and onlays in 794 patients and reported a survivalrate of 95.5% at 9 years.25 The majority of failures were caused by inlay fracture, tooth fracture, tooth extraction, and replacement for occlusal reconstruction.25 A series of articles evaluated 1,011 inlays and onlays placed in 299 patients between 1987 and 1990 for up to 18 years. The authors deter- mined a survival probability of 95% after 5 years, 91.6% after 7 years, and 90.0% at 10 years; a survival rate comparable to conventional ceramic restorations.24,56-58The low failure rate of CEREC- manufactured restorations documents the reliability and the clinical predictability of such restorations.As you will notice in the excerpts from above in between 1985-1987 in a study of 94 crowns only two reported fractures. In 2002 in over 10 years of clinical service they has a 90.4% survival rate of at least 10 years. In only 4% was the failure caused by Ceramic fracturing yet we have a 33% failed due to ceramic fracturing at 2 years. In the 2003 study of 2328 there was a survival rate of 95.5% at 9 years. Multiple studies evaluating 1,011 inlays between 1987 and 1990 show a survival rates of 95% after 5 years, 91.6% after 7 years and 90.0% at 10 years. [redacted]
HOW LONG SHOULD RESTORATIONS LAST?A literature search was undertaken using Pubmed in the identification of relevant articles published from 1974 up to and including 2014.The following keywords were used: longevity, restorations, prosthodontics, crowns, all ceramic, zirconia, CAD/CAM, amalgam, composite, lifespan, survival. Twenty two articles have been included in this review, which covers both direct and indirect restorative materials as well as different manufacturing techniques.the hybrid composites performed the best with annual failure rates of 1.5-2%The CEREC 1 system was mainly used for chairside fabrication of inlays and onlays with long-term studies showing adequate survival rates of 97% over five years, and 90% over 10 years.2 The main reasons for failure of these restorations were the result of ceramic fracture (feldspathic porcelain), followed by fractures to the underlying supporting tooth. With advances in technology, the CEREC 2 system was capable of producing inlays, onlays, full and partial crowns with survival rates of 87% over seven years. The current CEREC 3 system will manufacture veneers, short bridges, and implant abutments, with survival rates for these being 95-97% over five years.18As you will see I have included two studies that show the survivability rates up to 10 years. contained within this study are dozens of other studies as their source material. Rather then writing you a endless email with dozens of pages I have included these a source material. As you see the work of Russell Bogacki does not even come close to the work of his peers. As you see above the survival rate is at least 90% at 10 years and we have a failure rate of 66% at 2 year. This does not meet the standard of acceptable business practices. What makes this situation one that must be addressed is that when brought to his attention he refused to even provide a resolution. Thank you for your kind attention in this manner and we look forward to your sastifactory resolution to this matter. Regards,

Good Afternoon [redacted],
Thank you for taking our call, As we discussed we put a lot of...

research into finding medical journals that addressed the the proper duration of crowns. As you will see crowns have life expectancy that even after 10 year over 90% are still in place. I will include links to all of the medical journal as well as quotes from them to decrease your research time to validate our claim. I have made all of my commentary in Helvetica 15 fount in order to distinguish between what I have written and quoted material. 
This is the link that Russell Bogacki advertises the dental procedure on his website.
[redacted]
Same Day Crowns
Thanks to the power of the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics) machine, our practice is able to create our crowns in-office and deliver them to you in the same day, saving you time and money.
Here is a research paper outline CEREC and an overview of the procedure 
http://www.agd.org/media/121041/si_321.pdf
This article describes CAD/CAM technology used in dentistry and different restorative materials used in conjunction with adhesive cementation with particular attention given to the evolution of the CEREC system, as well as various ceramics developed for this system. Advantages and limitations of materials and technique are also discussed. 
In the first such clinical trial, [redacted] et al evaluated 94 [redacted]s Mark I inlays between September 1985 and August 1987 and reported only 2 fractured inlays during that time.53 In 2002, [redacted] & [redacted] studied 200 [redacted] Mark II inlays over 10 years of clinical service and reported a 90.4% survival rate.54 In 8 cases, failure was caused by ceramic fracture; in 3 cases, by tooth fracture. 
A 2003 study by [redacted] & [redacted] evaluated 2,328 ceramic inlays and onlays in 794 patients and reported a survivalrate of 95.5% at 9 years.25 The majority of failures were caused by inlay fracture, tooth fracture, tooth extraction, and replacement for occlusal reconstruction.25 A series of articles evaluated 1,011 inlays and onlays placed in 299 patients between 1987 and 1990 for up to 18 years. The authors deter- mined a survival probability of 95% after 5 years, 91.6% after 7 years, and 90.0% at 10 years; a survival rate comparable to conventional ceramic restorations.24,56-58
The low failure rate of CEREC- manufactured restorations documents the reliability and the clinical predictability of such restorations.
As you will notice in the excerpts from above in between 1985-1987 in a study of 94 crowns only two reported fractures. In 2002 in over 10 years of clinical service they has a 90.4% survival rate of at least 10 years. In only 4% was the failure caused by Ceramic fracturing yet we have a 33% failed due to ceramic fracturing at 2 years. 
In the 2003 study of 2328 there was a survival rate of 95.5% at 9 years. Multiple studies evaluating 1,011 inlays between 1987 and 1990 show a survival rates of 95% after 5 years, 91.6% after 7 years and 90.0% at 10 years. 
[redacted]
HOW LONG SHOULD RESTORATIONS LAST?
A literature search was undertaken using Pubmed in the identification of relevant articles published from 1974 up to and including 2014.The following keywords were used: longevity, restorations, prosthodontics, crowns, all ceramic, zirconia, CAD/CAM, amalgam, composite, lifespan, survival. Twenty two articles have been included in this review, which covers both direct and indirect restorative materials as well as different manufacturing techniques.
the hybrid composites performed the best with annual failure rates of 1.5-2%
The CEREC 1 system was mainly used for chairside fabrication of inlays and onlays with long-term studies showing adequate survival rates of 97% over five years, and 90% over 10 years.2 The main reasons for failure of these restorations were the result of ceramic fracture (feldspathic porcelain), followed by fractures to the underlying supporting tooth. With advances in technology, the CEREC 2 system was capable of producing inlays, onlays, full and partial crowns with survival rates of 87% over seven years. The current CEREC 3 system will manufacture veneers, short bridges, and implant abutments, with survival rates for these being 95-97% over five years.18
As you will see I have included two studies that show the survivability rates up to 10 years. contained within this study are dozens of other studies as their source material. Rather then writing you a endless email with dozens of pages I have included these a source material. 
As you see the work of Russell Bogacki does not even come close to the work of his peers. As you see above the survival rate is at least 90% at 10 years and we have a failure rate of 66% at 2 year. This does not meet the standard of acceptable business practices. What makes this situation one that must be addressed is that when brought to his attention he refused to even provide a resolution. 
Thank you for your kind attention in this manner and we look forward to your sastifactory resolution to this matter. 
Regards,