- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #41
No, Chum was sedated - under anesthesia today. The teeth were not extracted while he was awake or aware, and he did not feel pain during this procedure today. This was a regular dental. He has been given a pain killer that lasts 72 hours (rimadal), and if he needs another shot, he'll get it (but hopefully he won't need it).
No, I am KICKING MYSELF because he had his first dental after being rescued last year. THAT was a "non-anesthetic dental." This was supposedly a great alternative to the stress on his system (FIV+) from being put under anesthesia. Non-anesthetic dentals are for a check-up and cleaning. If further work needs to be done, as determined by the check-up, then a regular dental would need to be scheduled.
But I am kicking myself because his holistic vet recommended the non-anesthetic dental. I was aware of the risks - the MAIN complaint is that they do not find problems located up under the gum. She assured me that was not the case.
And she was WRONG.
Today's REGULAR dental found lesions on three teeth up under the gum - so bad the teeth needed to be pulled. His non-anesthetic dental was just 10 months ago. He has been in UN-NECESSARY PAIN for 10 MONTHS because we opted for the non-anesthetic dental last year, when I started this thread.
Well, the complaints about non-anesthetic dentals are correct. They do not necessarily catch problems up under the gum. And poor Chum paid for this choice.
So I end this thread with a warning this year: do NOT opt for a non-anesthetic dental if your vet's practice offers them!
No, I am KICKING MYSELF because he had his first dental after being rescued last year. THAT was a "non-anesthetic dental." This was supposedly a great alternative to the stress on his system (FIV+) from being put under anesthesia. Non-anesthetic dentals are for a check-up and cleaning. If further work needs to be done, as determined by the check-up, then a regular dental would need to be scheduled.
But I am kicking myself because his holistic vet recommended the non-anesthetic dental. I was aware of the risks - the MAIN complaint is that they do not find problems located up under the gum. She assured me that was not the case.
And she was WRONG.
Today's REGULAR dental found lesions on three teeth up under the gum - so bad the teeth needed to be pulled. His non-anesthetic dental was just 10 months ago. He has been in UN-NECESSARY PAIN for 10 MONTHS because we opted for the non-anesthetic dental last year, when I started this thread.
Well, the complaints about non-anesthetic dentals are correct. They do not necessarily catch problems up under the gum. And poor Chum paid for this choice.
So I end this thread with a warning this year: do NOT opt for a non-anesthetic dental if your vet's practice offers them!
Last edited:
GOSH - how many other cat's are there out there that get non-anesthetic dentals that are having problems like that too :dk: At least those teeth are GONE!!!! AND he will be feeling SO much better now. Chumley will be just fine, better than ever !!!!! 
:nod: Rimadyl... yep - wilbur has had that from time to time. Very safe, the Rimadyl. Give both Spooky and Chumley a loving scritch from me :rub: :rub: :heart3: 
