1. Welcome to the Painful Pleasures community! New members, please read the Rules of the Forum before posting. You should also introduce yourself here before submitting any other posts. If you're interested in sharing photos of your body mods, please read the Rules of the Gallery first. At any time, you can use the "Start a Conversation" feature to get private help from our moderators, Angel on the Edge, Dnd4evr, Rainbird, xXJarredXx, Revs, and Craftsman. Enjoy the forum!
    Dismiss Notice

Micro Dermal Vs. Dermal Anchor

Discussion in 'Surface Piercings' started by nived09, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. nived09

    nived09 New Member

    I know this has more than likely been discussed all over the place, but I just wanted to bring it up.
    My girlfriend recently decided she wanted to get her clavicle or area under collar bones pierced.
    I said she should get micro dermals, but she went to a someone and the recommended dermal anchors.
    Honestly I usually only hear terrible story about dealing them. He is older and has done more anchors in his time, but still I just don't personally like them.
    I just wanted to see what others opinions were and why.
    I currently have 4 micro dermals, 2 on each side of my hips I've had them for a long time now, probably between 5-3 years at least.
     
  2. Angel on the Edge

    Angel on the Edge Administrator

    Hi Nived09,

    Unfortunately both types of piercings are at high risk for being rejected, particularly in an area that isn't terribly fleshy/fatty like beneath the collarbone. Personally, if I had to choose, I'd go for a microdermal over a surface piercing bar, too, but I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. If your girlfriend wants 2 gems on each side, the surface bar might be the better way to go; it would probably be less clunky/more streamlined than 2 microdermal anchors. Beneath the collarbone, the hardware will probably jut out less with a surface bar, too.

    Hopefully others who have microdermals and/or surface piercing bars can weigh in on this, too...

    I wish your girlfriend all the best with her new piercings, whatever she decides! Tell her to do sea salt solution (SSS) soaks 2x/day for at least the first few weeks (1/4 tsp. sea salt stirred into 1 cup of boiled-then-cooled water, applied with clean cotton balls) and to mist her piercings with an aftercare spray like Nature's Pure Defense in between SSS applications. If her skin gets dry, she can add a couple drops of tea tree oil to her SSS's to moisturize her skin. The aftercare spray will also help keep her skin hydrated. Tell her not to apply any oils, balms or creams directly to her new piercings, as they can clog the fistulas, trapping bacteria inside and leading to infection. If she has any trouble, direct her to us! :)

    All the Best,
    Laura
     
  3. nived09

    nived09 New Member

    I wasn't referring to the bar anchors, those I REALLY don't like.
    I might have gotten my terms mixed up but the picture below is what I was calling
    a dermal anchor.
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Angel on the Edge

    Angel on the Edge Administrator

    Sorry Nived09, I changed your picture to one from our site. We don't allow images from or links to competitors' sites on here.

    Having a couple of those might be better than a surface bar in some locations, although like I said, the collarbone area isn't a particularly fleshy one, so I don't know how well one of these would stay put. It might be fine, but if the piercer is recommending a surface piercing bar, that might be why. Why not discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each type of base with the piercer? It might give you some insight and sway your opinion about the best type of base to use.

    All the Best,
    Laura
     
  5. nived09

    nived09 New Member

    Thanks for fixing that above, wasn't aware, just did a quick google search.
    But back to the discussion the two things I'm comparing is the picture above, the dermal anchor and this, micro dermal anchor.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Angel on the Edge

    Angel on the Edge Administrator

    Gotcha. I am by no means an expert on this (any piercers want to weigh in??), but I think the microdermal anchors with the longer base are better for fattier areas, where they can be placed more deeply, and the "skin anchors" are better for places like the collarbone, back of the neck, etc., where there isn't a lot of room to embed a piece of hardware that has a longer base and a rise on it. However, I think skin anchors might be more likely to reject, since there's less base to hold them in place.

    Again, I've had limited experience with either kind of anchor, so I'm just going with what seems logical. I think the fact that your girlfriend's piercer recommended a dermal anchor for placement below the collarbone supports this theory, though.

    Take care,
    Laura
     
  7. Angel on the Edge

    Angel on the Edge Administrator

    Ok, I just got an expert opinion on this. The base type (microdermal vs. skin dermal anchor) is really up to the piercer's preference. However, if the person being pierced is more comfortable with one type of base over the other, they should demand what they want and go elsewhere if not accommodated, especially if the piercer can't give a good reason for suggesting one base type over the other. The fattiness of the area being pierced is what determines the rise. So, for instance, you might want a 1.5mm rise on a dermal placed by the eye or under the collarbone, but a 3mm rise for one placed on your butt.

    Hope that helps!
    Laura
     

Share This Page