- Email: [email protected]
Reading radiographs
was referring to patients under con scious sedation who were never asleep.
infarction or stroke supervenes. C .L .B . L A V E L L E , M DS F A C U L T Y O F D E N T IST R Y
S Y L V A N M. S H A N E , DDS
U N IV E R S IT Y OF M A N IT O B A
B A L TIM O R E
W IN N IP E G , C A N A D A
Reading radiographs
■ In response to a letter in the May , page 8 5 4 ,1 suggest that dentists do not have to either “ sit on the tongue” or be face to face with pa tients to read radiographs. I find it much easier to read radio graphs by facing the concavity of the dot on small films and by having the right side of panoramic films on my right side, as I face all films. In this way the teeth on the right side of the patient’s mouth are seen on my right and the teeth on the left on my left side, respectively, as the films are read at a desk with an X-ray view er, for example, or as I sit alongside the patient and to the rear o f the dental chair. A further consideration is to use a dental map that shows the right side of the patient on the right side of the chart to record the findings, for uni formity, as described on page 1074, May j a d a . jad a
GEO RGE A . K E M PSTE R , D M D B R O C K TO N , MASS
Hypertension m In view o f the recent discussion on hypertension (July j a d a ) , tw o fea tures require further emphasis. First, untreated hypertension often is associated with headaches, espe cially upon waking, blurred vision, depression, and faintness. By con trast, hypertensive patients receiving hypotensive therapy often complain of vivid dreams, sleepiness, weakness of limbs, dry mouth, slow walking pace, and diarrhea. Because o f such intolerance to hypotensive therapy, patients not in frequently discontinue their treat ment. Surely, therefore, dentists must play a role in ensuring that their hy pertensive patients maintain their hypotensive therapy before cardiac
Compliments board m Quite often we read that state boards are unfair, impractical, and difficult to pass by practitioners of long standing. I would like to describe my recent experience in taking the Georgia State Dental Board Exam ination, so that the hard working ex aminers may receive the recognition they deserve—and seldom get—for the long hours of strenuous labor at little or no pay and much abuse. For the first time in about a month I’m able to relax. After several weeks o f grinding on teeth models, review ing oral pathology slides, poring over denture set-ups and Georgia state “ rules and regulations of practice,” I took the test which in my opinion was a most comprehensive dental board examination. The laboratory phase was realistic, although the material out of which the teeth were manufactured was a little soft. The president of the board did, however, allow us to practice cutting a sample tooth to enable us to get used to the working qualities o f this different material. This cer tainly helped a great deal. The instructions mailed to us a few weeks earlier stated that “ the appli cant must use the furnished dentaform to prepare a number of teeth, to receive a wide variety of cast restora tions, and to wax, cast, and finish at least one restoration in gold. The ap plicant should be familiar with every imaginative type of preparation.” The last sentence was no joke. We had to do tooth preparations for an onlay, inlay, pin ledge hood, threefourths crown, full crown, acrylic veneer crown, porcelain jacket, and porcelain-fused-to-metal crown plus wax, cast, and polish the pin ledge. The selection was realistic and, in my opinion, every dental practitioner should be able to do these prepara tions routinely. The clinical portion was quite prac
692 ■ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR / JADA, Vol. 93, O ctober 1976
tical, too, for we had ample time for remakes if necessary. The required restorations were a gold inlay, an alloy, and a synthetic filling. The oral pathology slide examination was real istic, as were the rules and regula tions test and the prosthetic phase. And in all the examination was fair. It was also useful for me as it was nec essary for me to review situations which are not often found in a clinical practice. We so often have tenden cies to get away from partial coverage in favor of full crowns. It might not be a bad idea to have everyone in den tistry take a board o f this type every five years. Maybe the quality of den tistry would be raised. Last year, I was not failed by the Georgia dental board— I failed myself because I was inadequately prepared. Thanks again, Georgia, for helping me become a better dentist. G A R Y L. G O L D E N , DDS A T L A N T A , GA
Information not new m In their article, “ Cervical enamel projections as an etiologic factor in furcation involvement” (Aug j a d a ), Drs. Swan and Hurt are repeating in almost the exact manner studies re ported by at least three other groups of individuals, with little variation in clinical design or in results obtained. In addition, their paper, along with the references accompanying their article, fails to recognize the early work on this same subject o f Linderer (1842), Golner (1928), Gottlieb (1921), Bauer (1929), and Weski (1924), who described this anatomic variation both grossly and microscopically in great detail. Once more, Suzuki (1958), in the Japanese literature, published a much more extensive and descrip tive report of cervical enamel projec tions than that of Masters and Hoskins (1964), who claim credit for rediscov ery of this common anatomic varia tion in enamel form. Radicular enamel, both in the form of cervical projections or isolated enamel plaques within the furcation area, is an extremely common finding not always discernible macroscopically. This is largely due to the fact that
infarction or stroke supervenes. C .L .B . L A V E L L E , M DS F A C U L T Y O F D E N T IST R Y
S Y L V A N M. S H A N E , DDS
U N IV E R S IT Y OF M A N IT O B A
B A L TIM O R E
W IN N IP E G , C A N A D A
Reading radiographs
■ In response to a letter in the May , page 8 5 4 ,1 suggest that dentists do not have to either “ sit on the tongue” or be face to face with pa tients to read radiographs. I find it much easier to read radio graphs by facing the concavity of the dot on small films and by having the right side of panoramic films on my right side, as I face all films. In this way the teeth on the right side of the patient’s mouth are seen on my right and the teeth on the left on my left side, respectively, as the films are read at a desk with an X-ray view er, for example, or as I sit alongside the patient and to the rear o f the dental chair. A further consideration is to use a dental map that shows the right side of the patient on the right side of the chart to record the findings, for uni formity, as described on page 1074, May j a d a . jad a
GEO RGE A . K E M PSTE R , D M D B R O C K TO N , MASS
Hypertension m In view o f the recent discussion on hypertension (July j a d a ) , tw o fea tures require further emphasis. First, untreated hypertension often is associated with headaches, espe cially upon waking, blurred vision, depression, and faintness. By con trast, hypertensive patients receiving hypotensive therapy often complain of vivid dreams, sleepiness, weakness of limbs, dry mouth, slow walking pace, and diarrhea. Because o f such intolerance to hypotensive therapy, patients not in frequently discontinue their treat ment. Surely, therefore, dentists must play a role in ensuring that their hy pertensive patients maintain their hypotensive therapy before cardiac
Compliments board m Quite often we read that state boards are unfair, impractical, and difficult to pass by practitioners of long standing. I would like to describe my recent experience in taking the Georgia State Dental Board Exam ination, so that the hard working ex aminers may receive the recognition they deserve—and seldom get—for the long hours of strenuous labor at little or no pay and much abuse. For the first time in about a month I’m able to relax. After several weeks o f grinding on teeth models, review ing oral pathology slides, poring over denture set-ups and Georgia state “ rules and regulations of practice,” I took the test which in my opinion was a most comprehensive dental board examination. The laboratory phase was realistic, although the material out of which the teeth were manufactured was a little soft. The president of the board did, however, allow us to practice cutting a sample tooth to enable us to get used to the working qualities o f this different material. This cer tainly helped a great deal. The instructions mailed to us a few weeks earlier stated that “ the appli cant must use the furnished dentaform to prepare a number of teeth, to receive a wide variety of cast restora tions, and to wax, cast, and finish at least one restoration in gold. The ap plicant should be familiar with every imaginative type of preparation.” The last sentence was no joke. We had to do tooth preparations for an onlay, inlay, pin ledge hood, threefourths crown, full crown, acrylic veneer crown, porcelain jacket, and porcelain-fused-to-metal crown plus wax, cast, and polish the pin ledge. The selection was realistic and, in my opinion, every dental practitioner should be able to do these prepara tions routinely. The clinical portion was quite prac
692 ■ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR / JADA, Vol. 93, O ctober 1976
tical, too, for we had ample time for remakes if necessary. The required restorations were a gold inlay, an alloy, and a synthetic filling. The oral pathology slide examination was real istic, as were the rules and regula tions test and the prosthetic phase. And in all the examination was fair. It was also useful for me as it was nec essary for me to review situations which are not often found in a clinical practice. We so often have tenden cies to get away from partial coverage in favor of full crowns. It might not be a bad idea to have everyone in den tistry take a board o f this type every five years. Maybe the quality of den tistry would be raised. Last year, I was not failed by the Georgia dental board— I failed myself because I was inadequately prepared. Thanks again, Georgia, for helping me become a better dentist. G A R Y L. G O L D E N , DDS A T L A N T A , GA
Information not new m In their article, “ Cervical enamel projections as an etiologic factor in furcation involvement” (Aug j a d a ), Drs. Swan and Hurt are repeating in almost the exact manner studies re ported by at least three other groups of individuals, with little variation in clinical design or in results obtained. In addition, their paper, along with the references accompanying their article, fails to recognize the early work on this same subject o f Linderer (1842), Golner (1928), Gottlieb (1921), Bauer (1929), and Weski (1924), who described this anatomic variation both grossly and microscopically in great detail. Once more, Suzuki (1958), in the Japanese literature, published a much more extensive and descrip tive report of cervical enamel projec tions than that of Masters and Hoskins (1964), who claim credit for rediscov ery of this common anatomic varia tion in enamel form. Radicular enamel, both in the form of cervical projections or isolated enamel plaques within the furcation area, is an extremely common finding not always discernible macroscopically. This is largely due to the fact that