- Email: [email protected]
Software Selection
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
see are suffering from stress in many forms. . . . H owever, to ignore the pathophysiologic conditions (in this instance, internal derangements) that exist in our patients is not providing com plete diagnosis or treatment to these patients. I would like to know how these au thors can explain the radiographic and clinical documentation that exists in practices around the world in which the anteriorly or medially displaced disk has been treated with such suc cess. I would like for them to explain to a patient with an anteriorly or me dially displaced disk that this disloca tion cannot be reduced with any form of physical therapy or counseling available. How is it possible to clini cally reduce and feel the reduction of this displaced disk (both as a clinician and as a patient) without recognizing the existence of internal derangement? To state that arthrographic proce dures are “potentially hazardous, and perhaps technically im possible ra diographic” procedures is to be totally unaware of their diagnostic values. Several hundred arthrographic proced u r e s h a v e b e e n p e r fo r m e d at Providence-St. Margaret’s Hospital in Kansas City, Kan. Never has there been a complication following this proce dure beyond the mere tenderness of the temporomandibular jo in t.. . . I have recommended eight patients of many hundreds of patients to tem porom andibular joint surgery. A ll cases to date have progressed ex tremely w ell except for one surgical case. These cases have been followed radiographically, and none of the suc cessful cases shows anything but nor m al rem o d elin g w ith in the tem poromandibular join t.. . . Drs. Farrar and McCarty cannot be responsible for the indiscriminate use of surgical procedures on the tem poromandibular joint. Just as we must be cautious in recommending ortho gnathic surgery indiscriminately, so must we, as clinicians, be faced with the task of improving our diagnostic skills, and always keep our mind open to advancements that are being docu
mented throughout the world. I totally accept the concept that surgery of the temporomandibular joint should be a rare occurrence. But to deny this pro cedure as being clinically sound is to base opinions on extremely limited failures of these procedures or a lack of in v estig a tiv e curiosity and openmindedness. BERNARD T. WILLIAMS, DDS KANSAS CITY, MO
Influences on dentistry □ In the Emphasis section (May 1981) entitled “A Look Ahead,” only dental researchers and educators appear to have been consulted. Although it is true that dental re search and dental education do indeed provide the foundation for what is ul timately clinical dental practice, I find it rather unrealistic that organized dentistry has presented its projections for dentistry’s future on the effects of these research areas. Most of us dentists are practicing clinicians. Just as use of fluoride has affected the practice of dentistry, you are correct in that research involving caries vaccine, periodontal therapy, and nutrition w ill influence dentistry in the future. However, just as impor tant, and perhaps more significant for us who are the “dental majority,” will be issues such as changing neigh borhoods, shifts in geographical dis tribution of dentists and the general population, and health insurance pro grams. How can organized dentistry overlook these issues that are so im portant to the dental clinician?
with its survey of software vendors, helps address this problem. We would like the readers of The Journal to know that the 24 software vendors listed is only a partial list. There are more than 130 vendors of whom we are aware and probably twice that number who do not heavily advertise. It is also im portant to note that the equipment and pricing descriptions change rapidly, allowing software operative with one brand of equipment to be used on another. Prices sometimes tend to fluc tuate on a weekly basis. There are several pitfalls in software selectio n that the dentists should avoid by first writing for descriptive literature, by requesting the number of actual systems sold, by requesting and reading the manual, by requesting and calling doctors who are using the sys tem, by requesting a dealer demo disk and running the program on the equipment they want to buy, by pur chasing software that can be backedup (safety), by purchasing software that is listable or has source code held in escrow in case the manufacturer of the software folds, and, finally, by pur chasing software first, and then the hardware to run it. We have heard that some of the ven dor firms listed in the article are inter preting (and advertising) this fact as an endorsement of their product by the American Dental Association. We are sure that this is not the case. The Amer ican Dental Association is not endors ing these systems but just listing them for reader evaluation.
E. J. NEIBURG EDITOR, DENTAL COMPUTER NEWSLETTER WAUKEGAN, ILL
BRUCE E. EVANS, DMD NEW YORK
Correction Software selection □ We are pleased to see the article from the Council on Dental Practice, “Computer applications in dentistry” (April 1981). One of the biggest prob lems in the dental computer field is software selection, and this article,
An incorrect price for the Dental Com p u ter S y ste m m a n u fa c tu r e d by Phoenix Micro Systems, Mesa, Ariz, was given to The Journal (“Computer ap p lica tio n s in d e n tistry ,” A pril 1981). The price of the system is $10,000 to $28,000, depending on the hardware configuration.
JADA, Vol. 103, July 1981 ■ 15
see are suffering from stress in many forms. . . . H owever, to ignore the pathophysiologic conditions (in this instance, internal derangements) that exist in our patients is not providing com plete diagnosis or treatment to these patients. I would like to know how these au thors can explain the radiographic and clinical documentation that exists in practices around the world in which the anteriorly or medially displaced disk has been treated with such suc cess. I would like for them to explain to a patient with an anteriorly or me dially displaced disk that this disloca tion cannot be reduced with any form of physical therapy or counseling available. How is it possible to clini cally reduce and feel the reduction of this displaced disk (both as a clinician and as a patient) without recognizing the existence of internal derangement? To state that arthrographic proce dures are “potentially hazardous, and perhaps technically im possible ra diographic” procedures is to be totally unaware of their diagnostic values. Several hundred arthrographic proced u r e s h a v e b e e n p e r fo r m e d at Providence-St. Margaret’s Hospital in Kansas City, Kan. Never has there been a complication following this proce dure beyond the mere tenderness of the temporomandibular jo in t.. . . I have recommended eight patients of many hundreds of patients to tem porom andibular joint surgery. A ll cases to date have progressed ex tremely w ell except for one surgical case. These cases have been followed radiographically, and none of the suc cessful cases shows anything but nor m al rem o d elin g w ith in the tem poromandibular join t.. . . Drs. Farrar and McCarty cannot be responsible for the indiscriminate use of surgical procedures on the tem poromandibular joint. Just as we must be cautious in recommending ortho gnathic surgery indiscriminately, so must we, as clinicians, be faced with the task of improving our diagnostic skills, and always keep our mind open to advancements that are being docu
mented throughout the world. I totally accept the concept that surgery of the temporomandibular joint should be a rare occurrence. But to deny this pro cedure as being clinically sound is to base opinions on extremely limited failures of these procedures or a lack of in v estig a tiv e curiosity and openmindedness. BERNARD T. WILLIAMS, DDS KANSAS CITY, MO
Influences on dentistry □ In the Emphasis section (May 1981) entitled “A Look Ahead,” only dental researchers and educators appear to have been consulted. Although it is true that dental re search and dental education do indeed provide the foundation for what is ul timately clinical dental practice, I find it rather unrealistic that organized dentistry has presented its projections for dentistry’s future on the effects of these research areas. Most of us dentists are practicing clinicians. Just as use of fluoride has affected the practice of dentistry, you are correct in that research involving caries vaccine, periodontal therapy, and nutrition w ill influence dentistry in the future. However, just as impor tant, and perhaps more significant for us who are the “dental majority,” will be issues such as changing neigh borhoods, shifts in geographical dis tribution of dentists and the general population, and health insurance pro grams. How can organized dentistry overlook these issues that are so im portant to the dental clinician?
with its survey of software vendors, helps address this problem. We would like the readers of The Journal to know that the 24 software vendors listed is only a partial list. There are more than 130 vendors of whom we are aware and probably twice that number who do not heavily advertise. It is also im portant to note that the equipment and pricing descriptions change rapidly, allowing software operative with one brand of equipment to be used on another. Prices sometimes tend to fluc tuate on a weekly basis. There are several pitfalls in software selectio n that the dentists should avoid by first writing for descriptive literature, by requesting the number of actual systems sold, by requesting and reading the manual, by requesting and calling doctors who are using the sys tem, by requesting a dealer demo disk and running the program on the equipment they want to buy, by pur chasing software that can be backedup (safety), by purchasing software that is listable or has source code held in escrow in case the manufacturer of the software folds, and, finally, by pur chasing software first, and then the hardware to run it. We have heard that some of the ven dor firms listed in the article are inter preting (and advertising) this fact as an endorsement of their product by the American Dental Association. We are sure that this is not the case. The Amer ican Dental Association is not endors ing these systems but just listing them for reader evaluation.
E. J. NEIBURG EDITOR, DENTAL COMPUTER NEWSLETTER WAUKEGAN, ILL
BRUCE E. EVANS, DMD NEW YORK
Correction Software selection □ We are pleased to see the article from the Council on Dental Practice, “Computer applications in dentistry” (April 1981). One of the biggest prob lems in the dental computer field is software selection, and this article,
An incorrect price for the Dental Com p u ter S y ste m m a n u fa c tu r e d by Phoenix Micro Systems, Mesa, Ariz, was given to The Journal (“Computer ap p lica tio n s in d e n tistry ,” A pril 1981). The price of the system is $10,000 to $28,000, depending on the hardware configuration.
JADA, Vol. 103, July 1981 ■ 15