- Email: [email protected]
The Reader Comments
being a little more ethical in these day-to-day decisions. It is as follows:
the reader comments
T H E F O U R -W A Y T E S T O F T H E T H IN G S W E T H IN K , S A Y , O R D O 1. 2. 3. 4.
j o u r n a l d ev o te s this sectio n to co m m en t by rea ders on to p ics o f cu rren t in terest to d en tistry. T h e ed ito r reserves th e right to ed it all com m u n ica tio n s to fit available sp a ce and re qu ires th a t all letters b e sig n ed . A t th e req u est o f th e a u th o r, signatures will b e d e le te d b efo re p u b lica tion . P rin te d co m m u n ica tion s do not n ecessarily r efle ct th e o p in io n or official p o lic y o f th e A sso cia tio n . Y o u r p a rticip a tio n in this section is in vited . T h e E d itor. t h e
G ETTIN G TH E B R U S H -O F F
C. M . Fraleigh in his article in the February, 19 65, Jou rn al, “Tissue Changes w ith M anual and Electric Brushes,” states th at the electric brush substantially reduced the time necessary for home oral hygiene. M y personal experience does not support this contention. A t bedtime I timed m y own brushing pro cedure, using a m anual brush fo r ten days (Personal O ral Hygiene brush) and an elec tric brush (G eneral Electric) on ten different days. F.D .C. Red # 3 (erythrosin) disclosing wafers were used to verify plaque rem oval. In m y hands the m anual brush was definitely quicker, w ith times ranging from one minute, 20 seconds to two minutes even (average one m inute, 4 1 seconds), than the electric brush which required from tw o minutes, ten seconds to three minutes, 20 seconds (average two minutes, 35 seconds). A llen N . P alm er, D D S K in g s p o r t, T e n n T H E FO UR-W AY T E S T
In considering the ethics of our society, we have form al rules to govern much of our con duct, p articularly in the face we present to our community. H owever, w e m ake day-today decisions th at are governed prim arily by our conscience alone. For m any years, R otary International has had a few simple guidelines, called the four-w ay test, to help encourage
I s it th e T R U T H ? I s it F A I R to all c o n c e rn ed ? W ill it build G O O D W I L L and B E T T E R F R IE N D S H IP ? W ill it be B E N E F I C IA L to all c o n c er n ed ?
I am in hopes that you feel it would be inspirational to our members, and would con sider publishing it in our Journal. This is a one-shot special project of the Bellflower R otary Club of which I am a member. H ow a rd D a vis, D D S B ellflow er, C alif
S T E P B A C K W A R D S?
“ The new approach to state dental board ex aminations— The Missouri Plan,”' w hich ap peared in the Jan u ary, 19 65, issue o f T he A D A Jo u rn al made me think that a step backwards had been taken by these people. In the article it was stated th at “the state board has as its function the role of determining w hether a dentist is qualified to practice in the state, and w hether it w ill be of service to the public to perm it him to practice.” In m y opinion the only honest judges of this are the m en who taught the dentist while he was a student in dental school. If a dentist has graduated from a dental school accredited by the A D A and is of sound m oral character, I see no reason for the outdated ritu al of the so-called state board examination. The state examiners should examine not the students and dentists but the schools th at are training them. If these schools m eet w ith their approval, then w hy continue w ith a state board exam ination ? I f a dental school has awarded a degree to a student to practice dentistry, it seems to me th at a small group of men w ho have had little or no contact w ith the new dentist will not be able to judge honestly his abilities to practice dentistry. It also seems to be a rather strange phenomenon that a dentist is found to be competent by the state examiners of one state and, upon attem pting to take a state board exam ination elsewhere, is said to be incompetent. One could deduce from these facts th at the state board exam ination then is not really functioning to determine a very im portant m atter such as professional competence but is instead carrying on some sort of tradition that
976 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SSN .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
every one who intends to practice dentistry must take a state board exam ination. The role of the state board of examiners could also be suspected of attem pting to lim it the ingress of out-of-state dentists, thereby m aintaining a prosperous dentist-patient ratio w ithin their state. The A D A Jou rn al and newspapers through out the country are constantly reiterating that there is an increasing need fo r dentists. I feel th at there are some overcrowded areas and other areas which are undermanned. If state board restrictions w ere done aw ay w ith, within a few years a m ore favorable supply and de mand distribution curve fo r the country would become evident. I do hope that this letter is received in the spirit of constructive criticism, and th at per haps if other members o f the A D A feel as I do, something constructive can be done about the present outmoded situation o f the state board examinations. John P. D a S ilva, D M D P a w tu ck et, R I
Dr. D aS ilva seems to have missed the point in his criticism of the Missouri Board procedure. R ath er than carrying on the “outdated ritu a l” of traditional exam ination, the Missouri Board has taken a forw ard step to review w hat the candidate has been taught and has accom plished, clinically, in dental school. It is quite true th at the schools are reviewed by the Coun cil on D ental Education which is m ade up by equal representation from the Am erican D en tal Association, the Am erican Association of D ental Schools and the Am erican Association of D ental Examiners. In spite of this, most state boards still give perform ance exam ina tions. The Missouri State Board took its forw ard step when it changed from a performance exam ination to evaluation of the candidate’s undergraduate clinical work as completed in school. W e do not consider this an infringe m ent on our prerogatives, but rath er are proud to have the members of our Board review therapy perform ed by our students. O ur State Board and our dental schools in Missouri have joined together to make the state board exam ination m ore realistic. In ef fect, the deans of the three dental schools in Missouri and their faculties have agreed not to graduate any student until they believe he is qualified to practice dentistry and then the state board examiners review the clinical ac complishments of the candidate. It does not appear that the other portions of Dr. D aSilva’s letter are germane to the sub ject. This type of exam ination for new gradu ates is quite unrelated to the broad topics cf
“restrictions” and reciprocity. H aving observed it first-hand fo r two years, I believe it to be progressive rath er than regressive. H a m ilton B. G. R o b in s o n , D ea n U . o f M issou ri at K a n sa s C ity S c h o o l o f D en tistry
G O L D S M IT H E LE G Y A P R O P O S
I thoroughly enjoyed A lb ert Schweitzer’s ac count of the hazards o f a hum an bite appear ing on p. 74 of the Ja n u a ry issue o f T h e Journal. Apropos to the subject is the amusing elegy of O liver Goldsmith entitled “On the Death of a M ad Dog” which was first printed in the V ica r o f W a k efield , 17 66. Good people all, of every sort, Give ear unto my song; And if you find it wondrous short, It cannot hold you long. In Islington there was a man O f whom the w orld m ight say, T h at still a godly race he ran, W h ere’er he went to pray. A kind and gentle heart he had To com fort friend and foes; The naked every day he clad W hen he put on his clothes. And in that town a dog was found, As m any dogs there be, Both mongrel, puppy, w help and hound, A nd curs of low degree. The dog and man at first w ere frien d s; But when a pique began, The dog to gain some p rivate ends, W en t mad, and bit the man. A round from all the neighboring streets The wondering neighbors ran, And swore the dog had lost its wits To bite so good a man. The wound it seem’d both sore and sad To every Christian eye; And while they swore the dog was mad, They swore the man w ould die. But soon a wonder came to light That show’d the rogues they lied; The man recover’d of the bite, The dog it was that died. R o b e r t C . L ikins, D D S C h ief, E xtra m u ra l P rogram s B ran ch , N I D R
the reader comments
T H E F O U R -W A Y T E S T O F T H E T H IN G S W E T H IN K , S A Y , O R D O 1. 2. 3. 4.
j o u r n a l d ev o te s this sectio n to co m m en t by rea ders on to p ics o f cu rren t in terest to d en tistry. T h e ed ito r reserves th e right to ed it all com m u n ica tio n s to fit available sp a ce and re qu ires th a t all letters b e sig n ed . A t th e req u est o f th e a u th o r, signatures will b e d e le te d b efo re p u b lica tion . P rin te d co m m u n ica tion s do not n ecessarily r efle ct th e o p in io n or official p o lic y o f th e A sso cia tio n . Y o u r p a rticip a tio n in this section is in vited . T h e E d itor. t h e
G ETTIN G TH E B R U S H -O F F
C. M . Fraleigh in his article in the February, 19 65, Jou rn al, “Tissue Changes w ith M anual and Electric Brushes,” states th at the electric brush substantially reduced the time necessary for home oral hygiene. M y personal experience does not support this contention. A t bedtime I timed m y own brushing pro cedure, using a m anual brush fo r ten days (Personal O ral Hygiene brush) and an elec tric brush (G eneral Electric) on ten different days. F.D .C. Red # 3 (erythrosin) disclosing wafers were used to verify plaque rem oval. In m y hands the m anual brush was definitely quicker, w ith times ranging from one minute, 20 seconds to two minutes even (average one m inute, 4 1 seconds), than the electric brush which required from tw o minutes, ten seconds to three minutes, 20 seconds (average two minutes, 35 seconds). A llen N . P alm er, D D S K in g s p o r t, T e n n T H E FO UR-W AY T E S T
In considering the ethics of our society, we have form al rules to govern much of our con duct, p articularly in the face we present to our community. H owever, w e m ake day-today decisions th at are governed prim arily by our conscience alone. For m any years, R otary International has had a few simple guidelines, called the four-w ay test, to help encourage
I s it th e T R U T H ? I s it F A I R to all c o n c e rn ed ? W ill it build G O O D W I L L and B E T T E R F R IE N D S H IP ? W ill it be B E N E F I C IA L to all c o n c er n ed ?
I am in hopes that you feel it would be inspirational to our members, and would con sider publishing it in our Journal. This is a one-shot special project of the Bellflower R otary Club of which I am a member. H ow a rd D a vis, D D S B ellflow er, C alif
S T E P B A C K W A R D S?
“ The new approach to state dental board ex aminations— The Missouri Plan,”' w hich ap peared in the Jan u ary, 19 65, issue o f T he A D A Jo u rn al made me think that a step backwards had been taken by these people. In the article it was stated th at “the state board has as its function the role of determining w hether a dentist is qualified to practice in the state, and w hether it w ill be of service to the public to perm it him to practice.” In m y opinion the only honest judges of this are the m en who taught the dentist while he was a student in dental school. If a dentist has graduated from a dental school accredited by the A D A and is of sound m oral character, I see no reason for the outdated ritu al of the so-called state board examination. The state examiners should examine not the students and dentists but the schools th at are training them. If these schools m eet w ith their approval, then w hy continue w ith a state board exam ination ? I f a dental school has awarded a degree to a student to practice dentistry, it seems to me th at a small group of men w ho have had little or no contact w ith the new dentist will not be able to judge honestly his abilities to practice dentistry. It also seems to be a rather strange phenomenon that a dentist is found to be competent by the state examiners of one state and, upon attem pting to take a state board exam ination elsewhere, is said to be incompetent. One could deduce from these facts th at the state board exam ination then is not really functioning to determine a very im portant m atter such as professional competence but is instead carrying on some sort of tradition that
976 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SSN .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
every one who intends to practice dentistry must take a state board exam ination. The role of the state board of examiners could also be suspected of attem pting to lim it the ingress of out-of-state dentists, thereby m aintaining a prosperous dentist-patient ratio w ithin their state. The A D A Jou rn al and newspapers through out the country are constantly reiterating that there is an increasing need fo r dentists. I feel th at there are some overcrowded areas and other areas which are undermanned. If state board restrictions w ere done aw ay w ith, within a few years a m ore favorable supply and de mand distribution curve fo r the country would become evident. I do hope that this letter is received in the spirit of constructive criticism, and th at per haps if other members o f the A D A feel as I do, something constructive can be done about the present outmoded situation o f the state board examinations. John P. D a S ilva, D M D P a w tu ck et, R I
Dr. D aS ilva seems to have missed the point in his criticism of the Missouri Board procedure. R ath er than carrying on the “outdated ritu a l” of traditional exam ination, the Missouri Board has taken a forw ard step to review w hat the candidate has been taught and has accom plished, clinically, in dental school. It is quite true th at the schools are reviewed by the Coun cil on D ental Education which is m ade up by equal representation from the Am erican D en tal Association, the Am erican Association of D ental Schools and the Am erican Association of D ental Examiners. In spite of this, most state boards still give perform ance exam ina tions. The Missouri State Board took its forw ard step when it changed from a performance exam ination to evaluation of the candidate’s undergraduate clinical work as completed in school. W e do not consider this an infringe m ent on our prerogatives, but rath er are proud to have the members of our Board review therapy perform ed by our students. O ur State Board and our dental schools in Missouri have joined together to make the state board exam ination m ore realistic. In ef fect, the deans of the three dental schools in Missouri and their faculties have agreed not to graduate any student until they believe he is qualified to practice dentistry and then the state board examiners review the clinical ac complishments of the candidate. It does not appear that the other portions of Dr. D aSilva’s letter are germane to the sub ject. This type of exam ination for new gradu ates is quite unrelated to the broad topics cf
“restrictions” and reciprocity. H aving observed it first-hand fo r two years, I believe it to be progressive rath er than regressive. H a m ilton B. G. R o b in s o n , D ea n U . o f M issou ri at K a n sa s C ity S c h o o l o f D en tistry
G O L D S M IT H E LE G Y A P R O P O S
I thoroughly enjoyed A lb ert Schweitzer’s ac count of the hazards o f a hum an bite appear ing on p. 74 of the Ja n u a ry issue o f T h e Journal. Apropos to the subject is the amusing elegy of O liver Goldsmith entitled “On the Death of a M ad Dog” which was first printed in the V ica r o f W a k efield , 17 66. Good people all, of every sort, Give ear unto my song; And if you find it wondrous short, It cannot hold you long. In Islington there was a man O f whom the w orld m ight say, T h at still a godly race he ran, W h ere’er he went to pray. A kind and gentle heart he had To com fort friend and foes; The naked every day he clad W hen he put on his clothes. And in that town a dog was found, As m any dogs there be, Both mongrel, puppy, w help and hound, A nd curs of low degree. The dog and man at first w ere frien d s; But when a pique began, The dog to gain some p rivate ends, W en t mad, and bit the man. A round from all the neighboring streets The wondering neighbors ran, And swore the dog had lost its wits To bite so good a man. The wound it seem’d both sore and sad To every Christian eye; And while they swore the dog was mad, They swore the man w ould die. But soon a wonder came to light That show’d the rogues they lied; The man recover’d of the bite, The dog it was that died. R o b e r t C . L ikins, D D S C h ief, E xtra m u ra l P rogram s B ran ch , N I D R