- Email: [email protected]
Replies to Criticism
used in my practice for more than nine years with excellent results. In conclusion, it must be pointed out that Dr. Millard was wrong on yet another point in fact, when he states that “ no thermal pulp tester is market ed in the United States at present.” Obwegeser’s apparatus has been mar keted by the Union Broach Co. for some years, and appears in their cata log. 1. Obwegeser, H., and Steinhäuser, E. Ein neues Gerat zur Vitalitatsprufung der Zahne mit Kohlensaureschnee. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilk 73:1001 Dec 1963. 2. Reynolds, R.L. The determination of pulp vitality by means of thermal and electrical stimuli. Oral Surg 22:231 Aug 1966. 3. Grossman, L.l. Endodontic practice. Phil adelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1970, p 20. 4. Ingle, J.l. Endodontics. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1965, p 418. 5. Sommer, R.F.; Ostrander, D.F.; and Crowley, M.C. Clinical endodontics. Phila delphia, W. B. Saunders, 1961, p 92. 6. Weine, F.S. Endodontic therapy. St. Louis, C. V. Mosby, 1972, p 46. 7. Grossman, L.l. Endodontic practice. Phil adelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1970, p 16. 8. Fischer, C.H. Endodontie. Berlin, Quin tessenz Verlag, 1972, p 51. 9. Andreasen, J.C. Traumatic injuries of the teeth. St. Louis, C. V. Mosby, 1972, p 48. ER N ST H . E H R M A N N , D D S , F D S R C S , FR A CS M E L B O U R N E , A U ST R A L IA
Author’s reply: In answer to Dr. Ehr mann’s surprising condemnation of the report on electric pulp testers, he is reminded that the title and there fore the subject of the report is “ Elec tric pulp testers” and not “ Pulp testers” or “ Pulp testing.” The report serves as a historical sketch of electric pulp testing that will be followed by an additional report based on the characteristics (that is, power source, wave configuration, voltage range, linearity, and so forth) of several electric pulp testers cur rently in wide use in the United States, when testing of the several devices is completed. Dr. Ehrmann’s condemnation of
the report on electric pulp testing is surprising since none of his criticism deals with the main body of the report. Rather, he focuses on a brief para graph in the report that was included only to recognize the existence of oth er devices for testing pulpal vitality. The report does not attempt to com pare the relative merits of the various methods of pulp testing, as Dr. Ehr mann’s criticism suggests. In his specific criticism, Dr. Ehr mann chooses not to quote the report verbatim when he states, “ There is no conflict between the studies of Rey nolds on the one hand arid by Obwe geser and Steinhauser on the other.” Careful reading of the report will re veal the statement as “ Recent studies by Reynolds and by Obwegeser and Steinhauser have produced conflicting opinions on the thermal method com pared with that of the electrical meth od of pulp testing.” Their two studies do, indeed, lead to different conclusions. Obwegeser and Steinhauser found nearly the same error using carbon dioxide snow (2.8%) as was encountered using an electric pulp tester (2.5%), while Rey nolds found that of 45 healthy teeth that responded to electrical stimulus, 20 did not respond to thermal stimulus produced by the Naylor device. Rey nolds favored the electric pulp tester and Obwegeser and Steinhauser found the two methods comparable. Dr. Ehrmann’s enthusiasm for the “ Odontotest” device apparently has interfered with his objectivity in eval uating the Council report. There are obviously several conflicting opinions on the various methods of pulp testing that no Council report ever could solve. No reference to ice is made in the report since a specific device is not in volved. With regard to marketing the “ Odontotest” device, Dr. Ehrmann appears to have overreacted to a state ment in the report on electric pulp test
ers. The fact is that the “ Odontotest” device is not marketed through the dental supply dealers in the US. It is available through the Union Broach Co.; however, Union Broach does not promote or advertise the “ Odonto test” device, except in its catalog and at convention booths. Like many other foreign products, the “ Odontotest” is available in the United States through limited sourc es; yet, certainly, it cannot be regard ed as being marketed here in the usual sense. It should be noted that since the re port on electric pulp testers was pub lished, a new device combining both electrical and thermal sources of pulp al stimulation has appeared on the market. Finally, Dr. Ehrmann must realize that councils and the authors they ask to write reports do not take lightly or casually the responsibility to provide factual, up-to-date information for the members of the American Dental Association and other readers of t h e j o u r n a l . It is my belief that the re port on electric pulp testers fulfills that responsibility, in spite of Dr. Ehr mann’s attempt to discredit it. H . D E A N M IL L A R D , D D S
Replies to criticism m In answer to Marvin Cohen^s and G. David Mason’s criticism of my let ter which was published in the June j a d a , I would like to point out to Dr. Cohen that it wasn’t I who adopted the dress code but the ADA. No where in my letter did I attempt to re late long hair and ability. It is a pity that both Drs. Cohen and Mason have forgotten their bacteriol ogy. If they ever have to have surgery, I doubt that they would request the surgical area not to be shaved in their mistaken belief that hair is “ clean.” T H O M A S W . W IC K H A M , D D S K E R R V IL L E , T E X
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR / JADA, Vol. 87, O ctober 1973 ■ 787
Author’s reply: In answer to Dr. Ehr mann’s surprising condemnation of the report on electric pulp testers, he is reminded that the title and there fore the subject of the report is “ Elec tric pulp testers” and not “ Pulp testers” or “ Pulp testing.” The report serves as a historical sketch of electric pulp testing that will be followed by an additional report based on the characteristics (that is, power source, wave configuration, voltage range, linearity, and so forth) of several electric pulp testers cur rently in wide use in the United States, when testing of the several devices is completed. Dr. Ehrmann’s condemnation of
the report on electric pulp testing is surprising since none of his criticism deals with the main body of the report. Rather, he focuses on a brief para graph in the report that was included only to recognize the existence of oth er devices for testing pulpal vitality. The report does not attempt to com pare the relative merits of the various methods of pulp testing, as Dr. Ehr mann’s criticism suggests. In his specific criticism, Dr. Ehr mann chooses not to quote the report verbatim when he states, “ There is no conflict between the studies of Rey nolds on the one hand arid by Obwe geser and Steinhauser on the other.” Careful reading of the report will re veal the statement as “ Recent studies by Reynolds and by Obwegeser and Steinhauser have produced conflicting opinions on the thermal method com pared with that of the electrical meth od of pulp testing.” Their two studies do, indeed, lead to different conclusions. Obwegeser and Steinhauser found nearly the same error using carbon dioxide snow (2.8%) as was encountered using an electric pulp tester (2.5%), while Rey nolds found that of 45 healthy teeth that responded to electrical stimulus, 20 did not respond to thermal stimulus produced by the Naylor device. Rey nolds favored the electric pulp tester and Obwegeser and Steinhauser found the two methods comparable. Dr. Ehrmann’s enthusiasm for the “ Odontotest” device apparently has interfered with his objectivity in eval uating the Council report. There are obviously several conflicting opinions on the various methods of pulp testing that no Council report ever could solve. No reference to ice is made in the report since a specific device is not in volved. With regard to marketing the “ Odontotest” device, Dr. Ehrmann appears to have overreacted to a state ment in the report on electric pulp test
ers. The fact is that the “ Odontotest” device is not marketed through the dental supply dealers in the US. It is available through the Union Broach Co.; however, Union Broach does not promote or advertise the “ Odonto test” device, except in its catalog and at convention booths. Like many other foreign products, the “ Odontotest” is available in the United States through limited sourc es; yet, certainly, it cannot be regard ed as being marketed here in the usual sense. It should be noted that since the re port on electric pulp testers was pub lished, a new device combining both electrical and thermal sources of pulp al stimulation has appeared on the market. Finally, Dr. Ehrmann must realize that councils and the authors they ask to write reports do not take lightly or casually the responsibility to provide factual, up-to-date information for the members of the American Dental Association and other readers of t h e j o u r n a l . It is my belief that the re port on electric pulp testers fulfills that responsibility, in spite of Dr. Ehr mann’s attempt to discredit it. H . D E A N M IL L A R D , D D S
Replies to criticism m In answer to Marvin Cohen^s and G. David Mason’s criticism of my let ter which was published in the June j a d a , I would like to point out to Dr. Cohen that it wasn’t I who adopted the dress code but the ADA. No where in my letter did I attempt to re late long hair and ability. It is a pity that both Drs. Cohen and Mason have forgotten their bacteriol ogy. If they ever have to have surgery, I doubt that they would request the surgical area not to be shaved in their mistaken belief that hair is “ clean.” T H O M A S W . W IC K H A M , D D S K E R R V IL L E , T E X
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR / JADA, Vol. 87, O ctober 1973 ■ 787