I disagree. I do not think aircraft have bite planes!
In England my dentist talks about my bite plane which is a big plate which impinges on the lower teeth.
As tothe photos, I do regonise the second one from elsewhere. So?
Mary
Mary, with due respect to the differences in terminology, I find the letter unbelievable for the following reasons:
1. I can't imagine any Orthodontist surfing the web to download photos for use in communication to patients when he/she has access to photos of his/her own patients and to various other media from professional associations (not to mention that many legitimate Orthodontists' sites use either line drawings of appliances or stock photos that repeat from site to site);
2. The minutae of detail about somewhat inconsequential matters like color selection for elastics in a summary of a treatment plan just smells of fetishism to me as does the mixture of technical jargon in the explanation. Patients don't generally know the jargon and are better served by plain language; and
3. While all references to the Orthodontist and the patient's address were blacked out (lending some degree of authenticity) the staff member's email address was clearly left visible. It was not an address to an orthodontist's own domain name or to an ISP domain but was, rather, a Hotmail address that anyone can establish under any alias desired. That feature alone reeks of phishing.
I certainly could be wrong but for my money, the letter and anything else related to it are as fabricated as the orthodontist photos at Webshots supposedly documenting the fitting of headgear without ever showing any photos of actual headgear fitting. In fact, those albums clearly have taken photos from other Webshots members, renamed them and, in my opinion, violated the ownership of those images.
I hesitated to write this but decided that there were just too many "signs" of fabrication to let it go.
