Question for Dental Students

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

This question is not intended to get you guys mad or to insult you. It goes back to the impression that some people seem to have about dentists being greedy.

There was a story on one of those TV investigative shows in which a reporter got a clean bill of dental health from a dentist who knew they were doing a story on dentists. The same reporter then went to 7 other dentists with an undercover camera. Of those dentists, 1 said there was nothing that needed to be done. The other 6 came up with 6 different diagnoses and offered treatments ranging from 100-600 dollars. These weren't just cosmetic things they recommended, they said this stuff should be done. My question to you guys is: How is this possible? Please let me know what you think of this issue and explain to me, if possible, how this can happen?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Pedo]

Not to attack, however as someone who enjoys research you have me worried. First off, in any experiment there needs to be a BASELINE. That baseline needs to be a criteria not a human diagnosis. For instance:

Who was the dentist that gave this "so called clean bill of health"? What is his/her experience? Were they a specialist? Did they practice preventive diagnosis? Did they have all the equipment to make a correct diagnosis? Did they take radiographs? Did they originally mis-diagnosis? 6 different diagnosis from 6 different dentists--- What was the chief complaint? Did they go to the dentist for a cleaning and hear they have 6 different problem with their dentition? What is considered a diagnosis? Did they go to a dentist for a regular check-up and then they they were told they could use a scaling for their calculus? Is that considered a diagnosis? If they got a scaling/cleaning----would they need it at the next visit? When did they visit the 6 dentists? One a day, a week, a month, a year? Plaque grows by the minute. Did the dentist all take radiographs? Most carious lesions can only be seen by radiographic evidence, not visual evidence-------however if they went for a simple cleaning, most dentists won't subject them to x-rays without cause. Some will. Therefore, was he/she examined the same way by each dentist? If not, the experiment is blown. If some see an incipent lesion---some will restore--- which is right. Some will simply give an in office fluoride treatment depending on their personal history, and schedule a 3 mo. recall to see if there is significant remineralization, which is also right. Which leads me to ask-----what did he/she write down in their patient history---- the same info? The same thing everytime? If they did, and they just had their teeth clean (3 days ago) by the previous dentist yet put down they didn't and still want to see a dentist-------Then it is probable that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th dentist would perform more invasive diagnostic procedures.

I'm not defending, nor promoting dentistry, I could truly careless; however, research is my "cup-of-tea" and when I hear ridiculous statistics like this I begin to wonder what people believe as truth. Example:

A team, with an extremely short season lost their first 6 games! What does this mean? Out of how many in a season? How do they gage the significance? Are they a bad team at 0-2? Is that same team good at 200 wins - 6 losses? HMMM?

RRB

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Ahh, thank you for the wonderful reply Dr2b. Some of the information you so pleasently asked for was provided in the story, but I can not recall them. I never put this story up as a wonderful study or rigorous research! Despite your ranting style of explanation, you have answered my question. Which was, to remind you (in case you are too buried in your research to scroll up): How did this happen? You have some good explanations as to how it might happen. You just need to calm down and be more coherent in your explanation.

 

[Dr. Pedo]

Whisker,

Wasn't trying to kill the messenger. After reviewing my post---I can see how you might have thought I was "annoyed." I was going to edit the dissertation , however it is a thorough explaination of the type of garbage the TV news anchormen "research and present" to the public. They do have an obligation to viewers to put a little more effort into their investigations prior to making it an issue. My point is simply, news stations (or shows) should report findings that are investigated and researched properly. Sorry if you took it personal----but I really can't stand misleading "sensationalism" that t.v. today preys on.
Gotta run----one of my petri dishes just broke :wink: !

RRB

 

[ckent]

I saw the same program, and as a result I stopped going to the dentist altogether for a while. It seems to me that if you don't know whether or not you can believe your dentist, what's the point in going? My problem was solved by going to the dental school and being seen by a resident, hopefully they are more academic and less likely to be drilling different teeth to make a quick buck or two.

 

[jbiter]

Going to the dentist has never been something a person looks forward to has it? So of course some bored media person thought it would be a GREAT story to see if those dentists are really needed. There was a similar story run on our local news station. I was too involved with studying to be able to catch it, plus I new the outcome would not be positive. I am only a freshman, but have been around dentistry my whole life, I have also worked in medicine for almost a decade before deciding to make dentistry my career. My whole point to this reply so I can make it short is there is not enouph education on dental health out there. Sure these days you hear all out heart disease, sinusitis, arthritis, but do they ever go on about good oral health and how it can effect your overall health? I know dr.2b went on a tangent but I agree with everything he/she said. Maybe a little more attention on good oral health would make the world see dentistry is doing good in the community, not just trying to make a buck!

 

[JML1DDS]

The whole purpose of these "TV News Magazines" or 60 minutes, 20/20, etc. is to "Break" stories. They want to sensationalize. If their story does not affect the public then who will watch. If their story scares the public then more people will watch and send letters and call-in to the "news" station, and the ratings go up. The "news" stations and reporters are not regulated by the government on what they must publish or what they can leave out. These reporters have a wonderful tool that ALWAYS works in their favor....EDITING. Have you ever watched 20/20 and heard them say, "oh, we didn't find anything. Everything was fine and safe.." The reporters can manipulate and arrange, edit and cut-out or add-in whatever they need in order to make the story more sensational. There is no way for you to know how many dentists the reporters searched through in order to get their numbers. They don't have to tell you that they went to 100 dentists and they are only showing you the 10 dentists that make the story work. You can't believe everything you hear. Also, on the flip side..I believe that there are unethical people in all professions. That is impossible t get rid of. You have to find a dentist that you trust and establish a relationship with them. To just stop going to the dentist is not a wise thing to do and that is the type of person that these News Magazines and TV News reporters cater to.