10 Things Your Dentist Doesn't Want You To Know

[NileBDS]

Hey guys ...
I just found this controversial article being discussed on the DENTAL threads, and thought you guys might want to both see and discuss it here.
What are your first thoughts ?
I thought it was interesting yet disturbing given the fact that AOL is considered to be a big household name, and news outlet for may of it's users, and the fact of what kind of misleading info they might actually allow to be posted. Yet another poor example of good 'ol investigative journalism ...
I should also mention that the article was initially published in a financial magazine, and AOL having the poor standards it does, decided to pick it up.

http://money.aol.com/smoney/insurance/healthcanvas3?id=20060320123709990001

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[g3k]

Hey guys ...
I just found this controversial article being discussed on the DENTAL threads, and thought you guys might want to both see and discuss it here.
What are your first thoughts ?
I thought it was interesting yet disturbing given the fact that AOL is considered to be a big household name, and news outlet for may of it's users, and the fact of what kind of misleading info they might actually allow to be posted. Yet another poor example of good 'ol investigative journalism ...
I should also mention that the article was initially published in a financial magazine, and AOL having the poor standards it does, decided to pick it up.

http://money.aol.com/smoney/insurance/healthcanvas3?id=20060320123709990001

That's the most uninformed article I have ever read....

 

[SJ35]

That's the most uninformed article I have ever read....

It's written for an avarage reader, by a person who is not a dentist, so what do you expect? But it has some good points, like about whitening, and the longevity of the results. Of course, you can argue most of the points from the doctor's point of view, but if you realy truly look at the things from the consumer's point of view, can you tell it is not true??

 

[Stelon]

Some points are discouragig and misleading the patients from dental aspects, like regular 6 month check up, mercury hazards, digital radiography. i agree with the points of continuaing dental education, whitening, insurance coverage from view of consumer aspect. Digital radiography is really good for clarity and reduce the chairside time, but we can modify the images of x-ray that is unethical for dental laws.

 

[SJ35]

What do you mean by modifying digital X-ray image? Whatever you do you can not change the image.

 

[Stelon]

hi SJ35, yes we can enhance the the effects of digital x-ray with the help of dental softwares, in this aspect, traditional x-ray is a more reliable and legal paper document, particularly it saves a lot when patient sue againt the dentist.

What do you mean by modifying digital X-ray image? Whatever you do you can not change the image.

 

[Stelon]

After a lot of complaints against such article, AOL had moved the article from front page to a significantly less prominent spot. It also replaced the photograph that originally appeared with the article (a mass of sharps aimed at a patient in a dental chair) with a traditional image of a dentist about to examine a patient."

 

[SJ35]

I work with a digital X-ray. All you can do is to make the image clearer, darker or lighter. But that does NOT CHANGE the image. You can not add or remove the detals from it.

 

[quest_life]

lots of factual errors....misleading the patient....there hasnt been must investigation/research done b4 writing an article like this....very unfair

 

[Stelon]

yes i agree with you SJ35, we cannot add or romove the details, may be my words are misleading you, but it is not reliable legally.

I work with a digital X-ray. All you can do is to make the image clearer, darker or lighter. But that does NOT CHANGE the image. You can not add or remove the detals from it.

 

[SJ35]

lots of factual errors....misleading the patient....there hasnt been must investigation/research done b4 writing an article like this....very unfair

I found only 2 misleading points -- About 6 months check-ups and amalgam fillings. The rest of it is more or less true, no matter how bad we don't want to admit it. Anyways, I am out of his discussion.

 

[NileBDS]

After a lot of complaints against such article, AOL had moved the article from front page to a significantly less prominent spot. It also replaced the photograph that originally appeared with the article (a mass of sharps aimed at a patient in a dental chair) with a traditional image of a dentist about to examine a patient."

Interesting. No wait, I still hate them ...

 

[NileBDS]

It's written for an avarage reader, by a person who is not a dentist, so what do you expect? ...

Hey SJ.
What bothers me is that those average people are my and your patients, and they are being utterly misinformed. When a patient sits in my chair, and tells me that s/he wants a resing filling instead of amalgam because amalgam is dumping "hazardous waste" into their blood stream, that just makes me angry. There is no proof to back that. The most harm that happens from amalgam, is from the residual mercury and mercury vapors. That's pretty much it. If you have a good assistant to take care of the mercury vapors (high vol. suction) while you are doing your initial condesation, and if you as a doctor control your excess mercury during final condesation stages and carving, you are safe.
Let's face it, amalgam has been around for ever, and has the longest track record to back it's reliabity. It's not unusual to see amalgam fillings (properly done) out live gold crowns.
Anyways, moving on ... there are many points this article raises which are controversial, but if you ask me, it just addresses them in the worng way every time. Probably the only valid one in my point of view is the one about the "CE cruises".
Patients also, from my experience, do a very poor job on verifying the sources in which they obtain their information from. They don't care whether it is an ADA journal or readers digest. If it's on paper selling money, they take it to heart.
If you want to discus the rest of the points, I would be happy to. I just don't want this post to be too long.
Thanks SJ, and talk to you soon.

 

[SJ35]

I said I was not going to discuss this anymore, but I can't stop, I guess
See, I would not put amalgam fillings anyway. There are composits that have characteristics equal to amalgam. I don't think amalgams are harmful for patients after they set, but they are definetly harmful for you and your assitant. Besides, they look ugly in the mouth. I would not exchange good amalgam fillings in somebody's mouth just to get money, but as I said, I would not put new amalgams. That's my oppinion about this point.

 

[NileBDS]

I said I was not going to discuss this anymore, but I can't stop, I guess
See, I would not put amalgam fillings anyway. There are composits that have characteristics equal to amalgam. I don't think amalgams are harmful for patients after they set, but they are definetly harmful for you and your assitant. Besides, they look ugly in the mouth. I would not exchange good amalgam fillings in somebody's mouth just to get money, but as I said, I would not put new amalgams. That's my oppinion about this point.

By all means are you entitled to your opinion SJ, and by all means do I respect it. I understand that.
But the point again, is about misinformation. Would you tell a patient of yours that amalgam is poisonous (as some doctors do inorder to make a quick buck from replacing their old ones with composite), or hazardous waste as the article put it ?
Anyways, we can't debate this here. Just wait untill we get to San Francisco ... we'll have plenty of time !! (Aren't you excited ? I am ...).

 

[SJ35]

Believe me, I am exited
And no, I would not tell my patient that amalgam is poisonous. And I agree with you, that there are not enough facts to back that up. The point about amalgams is one that I dissagree with in that article.
OK, let's leave this alone. It's not worth our time.