Re: Not to be banded untill 7 months??

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/23/2002 3:02:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, amiesgossipbox@... writes:

When I talked to the orthodist last she said if she had it her way

she wouldn't see any babies till they were seven months?? Is this

right?

Well the cranial specialist that is seeing said that he typically won't put a baby younger than 6 months in a helmet..b/c they are just gaining neck control. But i never heard of b/c they grow out of it too quick.

Mom to

[Guest guest]

Amie,

I don't think so - that sounds a little far fetched to me. The growth spurts

are what generate the change - early banding is a good thing because the

change occurs quicker and the chances of a more complete outcome are greater.

I'm not buying into her line of thinking on this one.

Marci (Mom to )

Oklahoma

[Guest guest]

Amie,

My twins were banded at 5 1/2 months and Sam did indeed grow out of his band

before getting enough correction. We are still fighting insurance for the

first 2 bands we paid for, so a 3rd was not really an option. I still think

Sam could benefit from another band (he's 9 months now), but I can't get

anyone to agree with me anymore. His ped says " yep, he's still flat " , but a

specialist wrote the original rx, so it would really complicate the

insurance fight if the ped wrote a rx for a 2nd band. Sam was growing

really fast while he was in his band, and he had a very stubborn spot behind

his ear. Fast growth is good and bad when they are wearing a band - you see

changes immediately, but not necessarily enough before the band is too

small. On the other hand, Sara got complete correction in only 6 weeks. I

guess what I'm saying is that all babies are different. I don't think you

can know if you will need a 2nd band until you actually need a 2nd band.

Prepare yourself either way.

Gail, Sam and Sara's mom, DOC grads

Not to be banded untill 7 months??

> When I talked to the orthodist last she said if she had it her way

> she wouldn't see any babies till they were seven months?? Is this

> right? She said it just doesn't make sense to band a baby who is

> going to grow to quickly out of the band, and need a second one? What

> is everyone elses opinion?

>

> Amie

>

>

>

> For more plagio info

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:59:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, solewaterk@... writes:

She said it just doesn't make sense to band a baby who is

going to grow to quickly out of the band, and need a second one? What

is everyone elses opinion?

Aimee,

Go back and educate your orthotist that when they are growing quickly is the BEST time to be in a band- you want optimum growth spurts so that will mean less time spent in a band and possibly greater correction. That's the whole idea of the band, to shape the head as its growing. The optimum age to band is between 5-8 months I believe, and some have even started earlier, and some much later. It does mean that possibly a second band might be needed if they outgrow the first, but the severity of the plagio would dictate whether a second was needed at all.

' Mom

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:01:13 -0000 AMIESGOSSIPBOX <amiesgossipbox@...>

wrote:

When I talked to the orthodist last she said if she had it her way

she wouldn't see any babies till they were seven months?? Is this

right? She said it just doesn't make sense to band a baby who is

going to grow to quickly out of the band, and need a second one? What

is everyone elses opinion?

Amie

[Guest guest]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I knew this argument could go

either way, but I do believe the soon the better! Aaahhhh Who knows!

Maybe some day they will all agree on the same thing? HA! Anyways,

thanks for everyone's replies! I am going to go armed with them, so I

can prove it really is case by case. In Dakota's, and many others the

banding would have been better of sooner.

Thanks!

Amie mommy to Dakota (STAR band), and Dayton!