Why Dentists Exist

[busupshot83]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://slate.msn.com/id/33269/#ContinueArticle

 

[Dr.BadVibes]

awesome article dude....just emailed it to everyone in my class

 

[TX OMFS]

Damn, who let that author into the secret meeting? Seriously, he's right on.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Thanks for the link.

 

[busupshot83]

While they happily (and profitably) scraped teeth and filled cavities during the '60s and '70s, fluoride was quietly choking off their revenue stream. The percentage of children with cavities fell by half and kept falling. People stopped going to the dentist, because they didn't need to. At the same time, the government funded dental-school construction, spilling new dentists into a saturated market. Many found themselves cleaning teeth for $10 an hour in mall clinics. In 1984, Forbes magazine forecast the end of the profession. Only a few lonely dentists would survive to fill the few remaining cavities, the last vestiges of a once-great civilization on Long Island.

I have a question: if fluoride, back in the 60s and 70s, was a "threat" to dentists' profits, couldn't the production of a new substance do the same thing to dentists in the future?

 

[aphistis]

While they happily (and profitably) scraped teeth and filled cavities during the '60s and '70s, fluoride was quietly choking off their revenue stream. The percentage of children with cavities fell by half and kept falling. People stopped going to the dentist, because they didn't need to. At the same time, the government funded dental-school construction, spilling new dentists into a saturated market. Many found themselves cleaning teeth for $10 an hour in mall clinics. In 1984, Forbes magazine forecast the end of the profession. Only a few lonely dentists would survive to fill the few remaining cavities, the last vestiges of a once-great civilization on Long Island.

I have a question: if fluoride, back in the 60s and 70s, was a "threat" to dentists' profits, couldn't the production of a new substance do the same thing to dentists in the future?

Maybe, but we're the ones who pushed for fluoridation in the first place. Like the article says, we're doing splendidly despite our best efforts to put ourselves out of business. 😀

 

[ItsGavinC]

I have a question: if fluoride, back in the 60s and 70s, was a "threat" to dentists' profits, couldn't the production of a new substance do the same thing to dentists in the future?

It was a thread to profits as they were (teeth with less carious lesions), but ushered in a whole new era of management and treatment. Many neglect to remember that just because teeth aren't damaged, doesn't mean they don't need treatment & maintenance.

 

[groundhog]

While they happily (and profitably) scraped teeth and filled cavities during the '60s and '70s, fluoride was quietly choking off their revenue stream. The percentage of children with cavities fell by half and kept falling. People stopped going to the dentist, because they didn't need to. At the same time, the government funded dental-school construction, spilling new dentists into a saturated market. Many found themselves cleaning teeth for $10 an hour in mall clinics. In 1984, Forbes magazine forecast the end of the profession. Only a few lonely dentists would survive to fill the few remaining cavities, the last vestiges of a once-great civilization on Long Island.

I have a question: if fluoride, back in the 60s and 70s, was a "threat" to dentists' profits, couldn't the production of a new substance do the same thing to dentists in the future?

Just the opposite. The article claims that dental patients are more willing to pay for cosmetic procedures which may not be necessary to maintain good oral health rather than the corrective procedures which are. Advances in technology will continue to bring down the costs of the corrective procedures which will attract more of that 50% of the population that does not visit the dentist on a regular basis.

 

[booshwa]

As I understand it, it is not ethical for dentist to state that amalgams are dangerous-since there is no conclusive data. So obviously a dentist can recommend tooth colored restorations, for esthetic reasons, but I think they cannot state that "it is dangerous to have these amalgams in your mouth, so we must remove them." (as the article suggests)...

Anybody know anything about this?

 

[Dino_D]

As I understand it, it is not ethical for dentist to state that amalgams are dangerous-since there is no conclusive data. So obviously a dentist can recommend tooth colored restorations, for esthetic reasons, but I think they cannot state that "it is dangerous to have these amalgams in your mouth, so we must remove them." (as the article suggests)...

Anybody know anything about this?

That is correct. According to the ADA there is no evidence that contraindicates the use of amalgams at this time. However, as a dentist you can simply say that you do not use amalgams in your office as a "personal preference" if you wanted to or go into any other reason for not wanting to use it other than saying it is illegal. The "mercury debate" has gone on for some time.