- Email: [email protected]
Fraternity votes ‘no’
or m isrepresented advertising; be it R esolved, that the H ouse of D ele gates of the A D A direct the Council on D ental T herapeutics to rescind approval of any dentifrice, and not lend its stam p o f approval to any den tifrice in th e future until such time as the A D A has determ ined that the pub lic has been sufficiently educated as to th e true nature and use of denti frices. A recent A D A publication stated th at “ it is the profession’s responsibil ity to provide know ledge and guidance to the public concerning the safety and usefulness of all adjunctive m eth ods recom m ended for mouth care. H ow ever, the success of any program in oral hygiene is contingent upon the p atien ts’ m otivation to practice an ef fective program for the m aintenance of good oral health, and not on de vices alo n e.” This should apply to dentifrices as well as mechanical de vices. I hope the A D A will act on its obligation to the public before it is too late. If toothbrushes and floss are to ac com plish the jo b for w hich they w ere designed; if plaque control is to really work; and if we are ev er to bring one generation of children to adulthood with no dental disease, then we m ust rem ain true to the object of the A D A to encourage the im provem ent of the health of the public. E D W IN B. S H IL L E R , D D S
T he Council, in accepting these products, thought it highly desirable to em phasize the use of fluoride-con taining dentifrice in the overall pro gram for maintaining good oral health —the regular dental visit and a pro gram o f good oral hygiene. It would seem to be highly desirable to have all children use a dentifrice that can be helpful in reducing the incidence of dental decay, even though their oral hygiene program is not optimal. It is, of course, not possible to prom ise a certain percentage reduction on an individual basis. Susceptibility to de cay differs in individuals as do their program s for oral health, including fre quency of brushing and the use o f den tal floss.
F ratern ity v o te s ‘n o ’
■ T he Epsilon C hapter of O m icron K appa U psilon fraternity at Creigh ton U niversity Boyne School of D en tal Science is against m andatory con tinuing education for license renewal, and is doing something about it. A t th e annual business meeting on A pril 4, the following resolution was passed unanim ously: “ D ental postgraduate courses are to be on a voluntary basis as against being m andatory, and shall in no way affect th e yearly renewal of on e’s li cense to practice d en tistry .” B ER N A RD M. BO GA TZ, DDS
W IC H IT A F A L L S , T E X
OMAHA
■ E d ito r’s note: O ne of the objects or purposes of the A ssociation is “ to encourage the im provem ent of the health of the public,” and the Council on D ental T herapeutics—through its acceptance program —attem pted to alert the public to the benefit that can be obtained from the use of effective fluoride-containing dentifrices. Fluoride-containing dentifrices w ere accepted by the Council on D en tal T herapeutics on the basis of clinic al studies done under a variety of con ditions, including both supervised and unsupervised brushing. A dditionally, m ost of these studies involved school children, and frequently no specific efforts w ere m ade to determ ine w heth e r subjects follow ed “ a conscientious ly applied program of oral hygiene.”
C h a n g es in p ro ced u res m W hy is it that, apparently in den tistry m ore than in medicine, recent research so often reverses “ pre-recent” research? By pre-recent re search I do not m ean old m ethods or findings, but those which up to a short tim e ago w ere used in treatm ent and in advising patients as irrefutable. H ere are tw o examples. We were trained to teach the up-and-down m ethod of toothbrushing as the only healthy brushing procedure. Often it was difficult to m ake the patient revise his routine. N ow the horizontal m eth od of brushing is preferred—quite to the surprise of many retrained pa
1246 ■ LETTER S TO THE EDITOR / JADA, V o l. 88, J u n e 1974
tients. Burnishing amalgam fillings after insertion was taboo. N ow it is recom m ended as a routine procedure. D o n ’t these examples show that new findings always should be accom panied by a grain of doubt until time proves or disproves them? P A U L M. D O C T O R , D D S B A L T IM O R E
T he councils a n d im plants m A s president of the A m erican A cadem y of Im plant D entistry, I w ish to com m ent on “ C urrent eval uation of dental endosseous im plants’ ’ ( j a d a 88:394 F eb 1974). T he Council on D ental M aterials and D evices and the Council on D ental Research ex press concerns with which m ost implantologists agree. F irst, inform ation about why some im plants fail and others succeed is often confusing or contradictory H ow ever, there is an encouraging note in the councils’ statem ent—the councils appear to recognize that som e implants do succeed. H ope fully, in the near future the councils, as w atchdog com m ittees, will cate gorize current designs on the basis of w hether or not they com plem ent specific biom echanical, m orpholog ical, and prosthodontic principles. T his alone would focus investigation at all levels, from laboratory to clin ical, along more productive lines. Second, the councils state that at this tim e the general practitioner should hesitate recommending im plants as a routine alternative for m ore conventional restorative proce dures. A greed. Im plantology is a highly specialized and difficult field, and currently there are not enough carefully trained oral surgeon-prosthodontists (implantologists). Y et cer tain types of im plants are consistently practical alternatives in the hands of a few specialists. U nfortunately, in sum m arizing the current status of den tal im plants, the results of the serious ly com m itted implantologist have been averaged with those of the nov ice. T his is detrim ental to the more skilled practitioner, w hose reputation suffers through averaging, and to the
T he Council, in accepting these products, thought it highly desirable to em phasize the use of fluoride-con taining dentifrice in the overall pro gram for maintaining good oral health —the regular dental visit and a pro gram o f good oral hygiene. It would seem to be highly desirable to have all children use a dentifrice that can be helpful in reducing the incidence of dental decay, even though their oral hygiene program is not optimal. It is, of course, not possible to prom ise a certain percentage reduction on an individual basis. Susceptibility to de cay differs in individuals as do their program s for oral health, including fre quency of brushing and the use o f den tal floss.
F ratern ity v o te s ‘n o ’
■ T he Epsilon C hapter of O m icron K appa U psilon fraternity at Creigh ton U niversity Boyne School of D en tal Science is against m andatory con tinuing education for license renewal, and is doing something about it. A t th e annual business meeting on A pril 4, the following resolution was passed unanim ously: “ D ental postgraduate courses are to be on a voluntary basis as against being m andatory, and shall in no way affect th e yearly renewal of on e’s li cense to practice d en tistry .” B ER N A RD M. BO GA TZ, DDS
W IC H IT A F A L L S , T E X
OMAHA
■ E d ito r’s note: O ne of the objects or purposes of the A ssociation is “ to encourage the im provem ent of the health of the public,” and the Council on D ental T herapeutics—through its acceptance program —attem pted to alert the public to the benefit that can be obtained from the use of effective fluoride-containing dentifrices. Fluoride-containing dentifrices w ere accepted by the Council on D en tal T herapeutics on the basis of clinic al studies done under a variety of con ditions, including both supervised and unsupervised brushing. A dditionally, m ost of these studies involved school children, and frequently no specific efforts w ere m ade to determ ine w heth e r subjects follow ed “ a conscientious ly applied program of oral hygiene.”
C h a n g es in p ro ced u res m W hy is it that, apparently in den tistry m ore than in medicine, recent research so often reverses “ pre-recent” research? By pre-recent re search I do not m ean old m ethods or findings, but those which up to a short tim e ago w ere used in treatm ent and in advising patients as irrefutable. H ere are tw o examples. We were trained to teach the up-and-down m ethod of toothbrushing as the only healthy brushing procedure. Often it was difficult to m ake the patient revise his routine. N ow the horizontal m eth od of brushing is preferred—quite to the surprise of many retrained pa
1246 ■ LETTER S TO THE EDITOR / JADA, V o l. 88, J u n e 1974
tients. Burnishing amalgam fillings after insertion was taboo. N ow it is recom m ended as a routine procedure. D o n ’t these examples show that new findings always should be accom panied by a grain of doubt until time proves or disproves them? P A U L M. D O C T O R , D D S B A L T IM O R E
T he councils a n d im plants m A s president of the A m erican A cadem y of Im plant D entistry, I w ish to com m ent on “ C urrent eval uation of dental endosseous im plants’ ’ ( j a d a 88:394 F eb 1974). T he Council on D ental M aterials and D evices and the Council on D ental Research ex press concerns with which m ost implantologists agree. F irst, inform ation about why some im plants fail and others succeed is often confusing or contradictory H ow ever, there is an encouraging note in the councils’ statem ent—the councils appear to recognize that som e implants do succeed. H ope fully, in the near future the councils, as w atchdog com m ittees, will cate gorize current designs on the basis of w hether or not they com plem ent specific biom echanical, m orpholog ical, and prosthodontic principles. T his alone would focus investigation at all levels, from laboratory to clin ical, along more productive lines. Second, the councils state that at this tim e the general practitioner should hesitate recommending im plants as a routine alternative for m ore conventional restorative proce dures. A greed. Im plantology is a highly specialized and difficult field, and currently there are not enough carefully trained oral surgeon-prosthodontists (implantologists). Y et cer tain types of im plants are consistently practical alternatives in the hands of a few specialists. U nfortunately, in sum m arizing the current status of den tal im plants, the results of the serious ly com m itted implantologist have been averaged with those of the nov ice. T his is detrim ental to the more skilled practitioner, w hose reputation suffers through averaging, and to the