- Email: [email protected]
Membership benefits inequitable
sume he accepts the control of the state board of dentistry) dictating to the clinician what he should do. The councils have never attempted to take such a posture. The councils were asked by the members of the American Dental A ssociation, through the H ouse of D elegates and the Board of Trustees, to comment on the current status of dental endosseous implants. The councils’ statement was the outcome o f consultations with a wide range of consultants in the field o f implants and the allied basic science areas as well as with legal counsel. The coun cil statement received favorable com ment and has generally been accepted by the profession. A large number of individuals were working hard to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the position of dental implants in the treatment of dental problems. Dr. Krashen’s comments can at best be considered as unconstructive and misleading. GEO RGE E. M Y ERS, D DS C H A IR M A N , O R G A N IZ IN G C O M M IT T E E , C O N F E R E N C E O N IM P L A N T S A N N A R B O R , M IC H
Membership benefits inequitable m The A ssociation of American Women Dentists is an organization established over 50 years ago to en courage women in the pursuit of a dental career. We require member ship in the American Dental A ssoci ation and that prerequisite sometimes prohibits our accepting prospective members. A s a result, it has com e to our at tention that there are many women dentists married to men dentists. The only benefit from their own member ship in the A D A that they cannot share as the spouse o f an A D A mem ber is having their own name badge at conventions, and a vote if they are politically inclined. When they come to this realization, they often drop their own A D A membership. For those who do belong because o f re quirements in other organizations (such as ours or specialty groups), they experience the wasteful dupli cation of all the mailings—journals
(national, state, and local), ADA N ew s, notices of insurance programs, and so forth. It appears that if these women (dentists married to dentists) could be members with reduced dues and, at the same time be eliminated from the m assive mailings, the A D A would benefit in two ways— increased mem bership and reduced expenses. In the past the relatively small num ber o f women in dentistry has made this seem inconsequential. But, with the prospect of over 1,300 women graduating from dental schools in the next four years, it might be wise to “ plan ahead.” JA N E W . S E L B E , D D S P R E S ID E N T , A A W D C H IC A G O
Alternate treatment response m Although I am reluctant to monop olize this column, I must reply to Drs. Morton C. Rennert and John E. Laura in the February j a d a , pertaining to my letter in the Decem ber j a d a on “ Alternate treatment.” Basically, I understand the need for dental insurance of som e type. I am concerned that wet-fingered dentists are apathetic to this trend and are not more involved in the input in estab lishing fees and procedures before they are entrenched in custom and law. Certainly, patients requesting cosm etic dentistry should be obligat ed to pay the differential. But decis ions o f alternate modes of treatment should be resolved by a peer panel of dentists from organized dentistry— not by the insurance office. Why will they pay for facings on 8 anterior teeth when 12 show? Should dentists receive equal payment for “ econom y” dentures? Conversely, should dentists be required to subsi dize these programs with reduced fees? Is this fair to their non-insurance patients? Are the insurance com panies cooperating by accepting less than normal profits for administering their dental programs? Blue Cross repeatedly increases its premiums yet denies its paneled members more than token interests. When N ew York City places homeless welfare cases in
hotels, it pays full fees. Must we re peat the catastrophe in England? SOL A. G ROSS, D D S K E W G A R D EN S, NY
En do opinions m Regarding the letter from John I. Ingle discussing the endo controversy (February j a d a ) : It seem s that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and this should apply to those whose gutta-percha and sealers are not ap proved by the F D A . I think the conclusion that 20% of the dentists using the Sargenti tech nique did 7% of the root canal ther apy is incredible considering the fol lowing points. It would appear that a particular group is seeking to bolster its image through the use of such sta tistics and it is quite possible that som e of those figures are inflated. When I was polled by the A E S, I— and probably most other wet-fingered dentists who were asked— underes timated both the quantity and success rate so as not to give an overly op timistic impression of our results. I know that I do far more root canals using the Sargenti technique than I did with gutta-percha and silver points because it is quick, effective, and the patients can afford it. I refer difficult cases to endodontists, but you should hear some of the comments when the patients learn the fee or the number of appoint ments required. As to the tuition received from AES courses, what about the costs of other seminars at $150 per day, remunera tion from copyrights and patents and so forth? It appears that the leaders of AES have an excellent system that is saving patients’ money and easing pain, and that the only ones suffering are Sargenti’s detractors. When I was in dental school in 1968, students asked the endodontic faculty about N2 (I had never heard of it) and the standard reply was that it wasn’t any good. We never were giv en any reasons why it wasn’t any good or any discussion o f it. I now feel that the reason for its unaccept ability was that some empires would
L E TTE R S TO TH E E DITO R
I JAD A ,
V o l. 92, A p ril 1976 ■ 683
Membership benefits inequitable m The A ssociation of American Women Dentists is an organization established over 50 years ago to en courage women in the pursuit of a dental career. We require member ship in the American Dental A ssoci ation and that prerequisite sometimes prohibits our accepting prospective members. A s a result, it has com e to our at tention that there are many women dentists married to men dentists. The only benefit from their own member ship in the A D A that they cannot share as the spouse o f an A D A mem ber is having their own name badge at conventions, and a vote if they are politically inclined. When they come to this realization, they often drop their own A D A membership. For those who do belong because o f re quirements in other organizations (such as ours or specialty groups), they experience the wasteful dupli cation of all the mailings—journals
(national, state, and local), ADA N ew s, notices of insurance programs, and so forth. It appears that if these women (dentists married to dentists) could be members with reduced dues and, at the same time be eliminated from the m assive mailings, the A D A would benefit in two ways— increased mem bership and reduced expenses. In the past the relatively small num ber o f women in dentistry has made this seem inconsequential. But, with the prospect of over 1,300 women graduating from dental schools in the next four years, it might be wise to “ plan ahead.” JA N E W . S E L B E , D D S P R E S ID E N T , A A W D C H IC A G O
Alternate treatment response m Although I am reluctant to monop olize this column, I must reply to Drs. Morton C. Rennert and John E. Laura in the February j a d a , pertaining to my letter in the Decem ber j a d a on “ Alternate treatment.” Basically, I understand the need for dental insurance of som e type. I am concerned that wet-fingered dentists are apathetic to this trend and are not more involved in the input in estab lishing fees and procedures before they are entrenched in custom and law. Certainly, patients requesting cosm etic dentistry should be obligat ed to pay the differential. But decis ions o f alternate modes of treatment should be resolved by a peer panel of dentists from organized dentistry— not by the insurance office. Why will they pay for facings on 8 anterior teeth when 12 show? Should dentists receive equal payment for “ econom y” dentures? Conversely, should dentists be required to subsi dize these programs with reduced fees? Is this fair to their non-insurance patients? Are the insurance com panies cooperating by accepting less than normal profits for administering their dental programs? Blue Cross repeatedly increases its premiums yet denies its paneled members more than token interests. When N ew York City places homeless welfare cases in
hotels, it pays full fees. Must we re peat the catastrophe in England? SOL A. G ROSS, D D S K E W G A R D EN S, NY
En do opinions m Regarding the letter from John I. Ingle discussing the endo controversy (February j a d a ) : It seem s that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and this should apply to those whose gutta-percha and sealers are not ap proved by the F D A . I think the conclusion that 20% of the dentists using the Sargenti tech nique did 7% of the root canal ther apy is incredible considering the fol lowing points. It would appear that a particular group is seeking to bolster its image through the use of such sta tistics and it is quite possible that som e of those figures are inflated. When I was polled by the A E S, I— and probably most other wet-fingered dentists who were asked— underes timated both the quantity and success rate so as not to give an overly op timistic impression of our results. I know that I do far more root canals using the Sargenti technique than I did with gutta-percha and silver points because it is quick, effective, and the patients can afford it. I refer difficult cases to endodontists, but you should hear some of the comments when the patients learn the fee or the number of appoint ments required. As to the tuition received from AES courses, what about the costs of other seminars at $150 per day, remunera tion from copyrights and patents and so forth? It appears that the leaders of AES have an excellent system that is saving patients’ money and easing pain, and that the only ones suffering are Sargenti’s detractors. When I was in dental school in 1968, students asked the endodontic faculty about N2 (I had never heard of it) and the standard reply was that it wasn’t any good. We never were giv en any reasons why it wasn’t any good or any discussion o f it. I now feel that the reason for its unaccept ability was that some empires would
L E TTE R S TO TH E E DITO R
I JAD A ,
V o l. 92, A p ril 1976 ■ 683