Microdermal Bridge Piercing?

Wednesday July 16th, 2008 @ 8:54 AM

Filed under: Pocketing

Hi there!

With the relative solidarity of a surface anchor, I always wanted to know whether or not it would be feasible to have these comprise a bridge piercing rather than the standard surface technique. Would there be a lesser chance of migration or is the skin simply too thin?

Correspondence is appreciated!

Microdermals unite!!!

While this is a potentially interesting use of microdermals, I think the chances of success are pretty small. Most people’s bridges have a bit of curve to them. With a piercing, you can typically find a flat area on that curve where the piercing can be placed. Given the large (compared to say a 14ga barbell) size of the foot of the microdermal, it would hard (if not impossible) to find a flat place for that foot to rest. If the foot isn’t sitting on a flat surface, the jewelry will likely sit funny, resulting in a piercing more likely to migrate/reject…not to mention simply looking funny.

I also think that getting two microdermals to line up so that the piercings looked straight would be harder than getting a standard bridge piercing straight…which can be pretty tricky as it is.

Posted by Derek Lowe | Permalink | 1 Comment

Surgery and Semi-Permanent Mods?

Thursday May 1st, 2008 @ 1:20 AM

Filed under: Pocketing

This may be pseudo-off topic but anyway…

I finally have an appointment booked for a tonsillectomy (the removal of my tonsils) and I’ve been asked to remove all jewelery from my piercings (labrets, barbells and tunnels) “If at all possible”. I’m not happy but of course, I’ll comply.

Can they legally make me remove my current dermal anchors and is there any medical reason why they should be removed? Also, is it such a bad idea to get a few more dermal anchors before the operation if they are given adequate time to heal?

The only real medical reason I can think of is because of the possibility of contamination of the sterile workspace but surely there is some other way to minimise the amount of germies so that I can keep my anchors. I haven’t discussed my dermal anchors with the hospital because I haven’t been able to contact them so, what do you guys think?

Actually, the reason they typically require you to remove all jewelry is to reduce the likelihood of you receiving burns from any of the electrocautery equipment which is very prevelant in modern-day surgery. While burns may not necessarily occur, it is a possibility and is a risk that most hospitals want to avoid.

I doubt there is any legal recourse to make your remove your microdermals…or piercings for that matter. Then again, they don’t need any legal recourse. They can simply refuse to perform the operation.

I think discussing the possibility of leaving the anchors in is worth a shot. However, don’t be surprised if they have an unsympathetic and/or unwaivering stand on the topic.

Best of luck.

Posted by Derek Lowe | Permalink | 4 Comments

microdermal gauges

Saturday March 15th, 2008 @ 2:54 PM

Filed under: Pocketing

Just Wondering what the usual gauge a microdermal anchor is pierced? I read in the BME encyclopedia that a ten gauge was used. is this standard?

Also, are there pros, cons, different effects, anything that size would make a significant difference? I imagine it would need to be around a certain size for the skin to heal around it properly, but other than that I don’t see any reason why size would make a difference; you don’t see the shaft of the jewelry, just the ends…

thanks!

The methods used by different piercers for installing microdermal anchors can vary. Some use needles, some use dermal punches. Varying sizes of needles or punches may be used depending on the area of the body being pocketed and the style of jewelry being used. Microdermal anchors are more commonly seen with a 14g post and a 3/32″ rise, but they have been manufactured in other sizes and lengths as well. Some piercers will use a needle or punch at the same size as the microdermal post, some will use a larger size. It is arguably more practical to use different sizes and lengths of posts for certain people in certain areas of the body.

Microdermal anchors can be manufactured in longer lengths to allow the post to protrude from the skin. This allows the ability to grasp the post and change the attachments on the jewelry. These are commonly seen with “healing nubs” as an attachment.

Recently, microdermals are more commonly seen planted without the post showing and the visible attachment treated as more of a permanent adornment, not to be changed. This keeps the jewelry closer to the body and minimizes weight and chance of catching/hitting/putting pressure on the jewelry.

Swelling can also be a factor for a piercer when choosing which method and jewelry style/size to use. The amount of trauma induced by the procedure as well as a specific person’s tendency to swell will help determine this.

Only high quality microdermals should be used. This is determined by the jewelry manufacturer meeting ASTM quality specifications. These pieces are generally made in titanium as opposed to stainless steel for a variety of reasons.

The design of the jewelry can vary greatly, so be aware of what type your piercer is using and why. They can be made with and without holes, grooves or tracks in the base or “foot” of the jewelry. This will portray their knowledge and experience with microdermal anchor installation and removal.

Posted by Russ Foxx | Permalink | Comments