upvote
If you ever get treated at say a dental school, where they will have roving faculty each giving their own opinion to the dental student over your open mouth, you will learn there is so much subjectivity in dental practice. One point of contention is about when to do intervention. Some doctors want the procedure done because they believe the risk of not doing so is large. Others might say you've gotten by this far alright and maybe only intervene if things turn for the worse, better to keep your real tooth as long as you can. Some dentists might want to see a lot of x ray imagery and retakes until their ideal perspectives are captured, others weigh the risk of irradiation and favor taking as few as possible. Any restorative work is very much an art vs a science, some hands are genuinely more skilled and some might take a few redos to get a repair to not break in 2 days from the demands of your natural bite. They might even look at the x ray image of a past root canal from knowledgeable hands like we might the statue of David, showing it to other staff in amazement.

About the only thing that seems to be in agreement across the board is flossing and brushing your teeth.

reply
With modern X ray imaging devices I feel like the dangers of irradiation from dental imaging are probably quite low. If nuclear hormesis holds up, you may actually be better off getting the imaging done.

The problem is the same as the CT scan: as much as my health anxiety would love another set of CT scans to feel relieved about, even if they do find something potentially interesting it may be worse to act on it than to do nothing, while leaving other things that can't show up on imaging unnoticed, potentially diverting attention and giving you a false sense of security.

YouTuber and doctor Dr. Bernard "Chubbyemu" Hsu recently covered an upsetting example to demonstrate how doing additional routine scans wouldn't have helped and may have harmed in a specific sort of scenario that I'm sure many of us fear from time to time. It doesn't prove or even assert that such scans would be useless, only that they are far from a panacea and that it isn't settled science that we'd be better off with it.

https://youtu.be/YDYMMgyN4k0

And to me, I think that ties into how we're doing dentistry wrong: I think taking routine X rays for patients with healthy mouths, no history of issues and no symptoms is reckless. Maybe it is sometimes beneficial, but every single year as a requirement seems insane. Why not every 3? Are we really catching things early or are we drilling into teeth that are fine? I question it.

Of course, I'm just some chuckle fuck on the Internet with zero dentistry experience, but my knee-jerk is that something seems off here.

reply
> as much as my health anxiety would love another set of CT scans to feel relieved about, even if they do find something potentially interesting it may be worse to act on it than to do nothing

I personally have a preference for having the maximum amount of information available to make a decision.

“Don’t get that “unnecessary” test, it might give you a result that might lead to treatment you don’t need” — hearing this blows my mind every time.

reply
The treatment you don't need might be zero risk, but it might also have quite a bit of it. And some tests carry risks too: See how different countries have very different protocols. The US system, which is colonoscopy first, and where polypectomies will be done at the same time, can end up with bowel perforations when the polyp was not even cancer. So the diferente treatment protocol is not just about costs, but about balancing different risks.

The unnecessary test, leading to an unnecessary intervention, which gets you unnecessary long term issues is a real risk in many cases. It's not just a matter of doing a bonus blood test here or there.

reply
To take it to the extreme:

If there were a risk free button that you could click to see a full breakdown of all illnesses no more how early stage, would you click the button?

It would include a report of cells that may eventually turn into cancer (or may not).

It would include things like polyps, and every other diagnosable condition.

Do you avoid pressing the button? Why?

reply
Unnecessary medical treatments can have serious consequences. Even if you are absolutely certain you have a given condition, some treatments are very not worth it. More importantly, any given scan misses tons of important potential health issues. Not just the fact that CT scans don't show signs of MS vs MRIs, but neither of them will tell you about many cardiovascular conditions. So time spent treating made up issues from CT scans you don't need may be better spent doing other regular exams instead. Meanwhile, many aggressive cancers will be far too fast for any reasonable scan interval to catch in time. (And CT scans, to my understanding, can miss tumors early on, since it can't see as fine of detail as MRIs.)
reply
The ADA no longer recommends routine x-rays - they should only be taken when there is something specific that needs to be investigated.
reply
TIL. That's good to know, makes me feel a bit better. I'm sure my dentist will want an Xray anyway next time I come in.
reply
> If nuclear hormesis holds up

TIL of that theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

reply
It's fiercely debated but as time goes on it seems like it is at least partially true. I'm guessing that some effects of radiation really do map better to LNT whereas others map better to radiation hormesis; why and when is a mystery, I think. Maybe some folks more vested in this topic have an idea.

The most fascinating example of hormesis I can think of is that after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, some people who would've received a relatively small dose of radiation seemed to have a slightly lower cancer risk than people who wouldn't have received any additional radiation.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6937943/

I'm sure there is plenty of debate about these studies and their methodology, but I have some suspicions. There seems to have been a lot of handwaving and intentional omission to explain away or ignore why LNT didn't seem to match reality. Radiation hormesis may be an illusion itself, but as it stands it appears LNT is unable to explain experimental evidence sufficiently. We're clearly missing something, and there is a lot of potential conflict of interest, especially given the obvious incentives for the energy sector...

But also, I just read Wikipedia and watch YouTube causally, so hell if I know.

reply
Hmm, googling it, it seems like a cross country flight is equal to 40 dental xrays. had no idea it was that low.
reply
There is a reason why Los Algodones has 1000 dentists for a city with population of 5000. It is called Molar City.
reply
Off topic: The idea of a City of Dentists seems like a Grim Fandango [0] kinda thing. Bonus points if somehow "cotton" (algodon) can be worked into the afterlife themes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Fandango

reply
Last I checked, actual evidence that flossing is helpful seems pretty limited.

" In light of the results of this comprehensive literature search and critical analysis, it is concluded that a routine instruction to use floss is not supported by scientific evidence."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19138178/

reply
deleted
reply
I regularly get food particles out of my molars using floss that brushing wouldn't have been able to, so for me it works.
reply
I have always been an infrequent flosser, but deep down I've hoped for something like this to reach mainstream scientific consensus for a while so I no longer beat myself over it. Fingers crossed this is not a skewed study
reply
At my dentist’s recommendation I’ve been using Proxabrush every day. It is very important not to force it, and my teeth are very tight so I had to get the smaller ones (I even have trouble flossing between some) but I had some early decay between some teeth and these seem really good with trapped material before regular electric brushing.
reply
Water flosser.
reply
I told my dentist how much I liked my water flosser, and he immediately said "that's fine but it's not very effective, you still need to use regular floss too".
reply
deleted
reply
Came to post this. These things are frigging amazing and like $20. Absolutely everyone should have one. Really you can floss and brush and it still gets stuff. I wish they existed when I was younger! Buy one! Thank me later!

On the 'dentists don't really know what they're doing' front, my kid's orthodontist ($$$$) describes himself as a "fencing contractor". Conversely, I got the water flosser tip from an Indonesian dentist who I hired opportunistically on holiday for a clean; he turned up in flip-flops but decanted to bare feet during operating and gave the most sage advice I've ever had in 40+ years of dentists: BUY A WATER FLOSSER. Terimakasih, Doktor!

reply
> actual evidence that flossing is helpful seems pretty limited

If I don't floss my breath smells terrible because of bacteria and bacteria causes tooth decay. I'm pretty certain I'm not special.

reply
It depends on the bacteria living in your mouth.

Some people get lucky, and even with low brushing, won't get cavities.

reply
Flossing is not merely essential to dislodging recalcitrant food particles, but also gives great stimulation to the gums themselves, and none of that effort is a waste, IMHO.

It is not sugar that causes dental caries, but bacteria. Flossing that old food out from between teeth is guaranteed to cut down bacteria growth!

Furthermore, my new and wonderful dentist and his hygienists wholeheartedly recommend and encourage the practice.

So perhaps you can excuse me for ignoring a singular “research study”.

reply
It was a systematic review, not a “singular ‘research study’”. A newer 2019 Cochrane review[0] found about the same:

> The evidence was limited in applicability and was incomplete. The included studies only presented data on gingivitis, plaque, and adverse events; most did not measure or report other important outcomes such as periodontitis or interproximal caries. … Additional use of floss or interdental brushes compared to toothbrushing alone may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, and interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. The evidence is low to very low‐certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6953268/

reply
Relatedly -

Private equity affiliation among dentists increases: https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2024/august/private-equity-...

When Private Equity Firms Acquire Dental Practices, Patients Pay the Price: https://truthout.org/articles/when-private-equity-firms-acqu...

Dental offices acquired by private equity firms tended to shift from diagnostic and preventive procedures to generally higher reimbursement restorative, specialty, and surgical procedures: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41367221/

reply
This is the primary issue. My dentist who we'd used for 10 years sold without us knowing. Almost all the staff we'd known left and finally the dentist/former owner. I didn't understand what was going on and why the service had gone to shit. Talked to a dentist friend and he suggested it was a PE takeover. I did some research and confirmed that was what happened. Found another privately owned dentist, but it's clear that some laws need to change to protect patients.
reply
Never had a cavity in my life.

The dentist office I went to switched my dentist, and suddenly, I had a cavity in almost every tooth, and he recommended drilling on the spot.

Went to a different dentist. As expected they said I do not have any cavities.

It's kind of interesting that nothing will happen as a result of that.

reply
This is unfortunately very common. I don’t think it is always necessarily malpractice but a difference in opinion and judgement on when to intervene. And of course, there is a financial incentive to shift that judgement to an earlier timeline.

IMO this is a good litmus test for choosing a dentist.

A dentist with nuanced and honest judgment will identify questionable spots, probe them, ask you about your experience (“does it hurt”), and explain the difference between something to watch and when it is actually problematic.

A lazy dentist trying to make a buck will take a quick look and tell you that you have a bunch of cavities that need to be addressed now.

Just like software engineering, there’s always the guy who will recommend kubernetes for every problem, and then there’s the guy who says “ah yeah, you can just do this with a shell script until you need more”

reply
I had a similar experience. They'll show you the x-rays, but honestly I can't see anything. Having moved around a bit and had a few dentists, I've noticed a distinct pattern where the ones that have the nicest looking offices with the highest tech equipment will recommend the most aggressive things. Look for an office that's functional but slightly shabby.
reply
> It's kind of interesting that nothing will happen as a result of that.

If you live in the US you can report them to your state’s board of dentistry. Not sure how responsive they are in your particular state but in mine they take that stuff seriously.

reply
Who would you sue? The one that missed all of your serious cavities or the one who is exaggerating the tiny ones to make a buck?
reply
the one who lied about there being cavities in the first place
reply
Oh man, that is so true! I just left a comment about that. :D
reply
This is horrifying.
reply
Layer on top that some offices are owned by private equity!

At my last visit, the new doc who took care of me for my third cleaning said: "Oh, by the way, we have these cavities we've been watching that need filling." It was never mentioned to me that they were keeping an eye on anything. I just had to wonder if every patient's third visit calls for a filling!

reply
> Layer on top that some offices are owned by private equity!

I used to be very regular with dental visits, and have had an enormous amount of work done over the years. Then I went to my first PE owned dentist (by accident) and it was such a horrific experience I've basically avoided dentists since.

There used to be some reasonable balance between the dentist wanting to make money and wanting to build a secure custommer base/happy clients. PE dentists are just money extraction machines with little to no concern for how much pain is caused getting money out of your wallet.

reply
What was so horrific about it? Share some deets!

(Just avoiding going to the dentist is pretty extreme tho - probably reasonable to get them looked at at least yearly?)

reply
Why would it be reasonable to see a dentist yearly? Assuming there is no ongoing problem that needs ongoing care.
reply
How will you know if you have an ongoing problem otherwise? When was the last time you accurately spotted a cavity needing treatment?
reply
[dead]
reply
Exactly the same experience. I didn't realize mine was a scammer/basically a pain fetishist until I realized that it was suspicious that there wasn't a problem that I forgot to use the special mouthwash they made me buy for 20$ extra. I get home and realize it's homeopathic.

Same guy expects me to handle the pain of all four of my wisdom teeth being removed with literally one 12 pill vial of Vicodin. Acts like I'm doctor/pill shopping.

Reported him to my stats dental board, they get back to me with "well homeopathic remedies can't hurt you either, so we won't do anything to him!"

Dentists are the scum of reality, and their usage as traditional fronts for organized crime is done on purpose and as a trope in media it is sadly true.

Wage war on them as an economic group. They are almost as bad as chiropractors. Also a traditional occupation of corrupt state legislatures/senators.

reply
I had all four wisdom teeth removed without anything more than acetaminophen and ibuprofen.

Are narcotics normally required to handle that?

I also had my gallbladder out via laparoscopic surgery with the same as pain relief. It's possible we just don't feel pain the same.

reply
I was similar, but it really depends on the individual. OTC works well for some and does nothing for others.
reply
After I got braces (stopped wearing my retainer, rip) and then got my wisdom teeth out, I had a small gap develop between two of my molars. I think one tooth tilted a bit so at the bite surface, they were touching but towards gum, the gap was large. It would constantly fill up with food and if I didn't floss soon enough, the gun would get inflamed and bloody. Hadn't seen a dentist for several years but eventually got one. I mention the gap issue to him around November. He says "you know, we could fill that in and it shouldn't cost you a dime if we can get you on the schedule before end of year." I came in a few days before Christmas on a weekend. It seemed like everyone there was getting some sort of work done, lots of drills drilling. Never had a tooth drilled before, that was incredibly nerve-wracking but overall a physically painless experience. I definitely had been wanting something done about this gap for a while, I've been concerned about a cavity developing because of stuck food or something worse. But to my dentist, I'm guessing I looked like easy money, especially since the only thing I had to give up was my Saturday morning.
reply
Where we live (somewhere in Europe), all the costs, procedures, etc. are standardized by the health insurance companies (which are in turn strongly regulated), so it is really hard for dentists to overcharge without getting in hot water with the insurance companies. The insurance also pays a good chunk of the ongoing dentist costs (though IIRC we have some extra dentist insurance). We go twice a year for a checkup and cleaning (last few bills were 12 Euros after the insurance paid the rest). Drilling (with anesthetic) and filling with a composite is typically 25-30 Euro out of pocket after insurance.

Going every six months for a checkup is really nice, because thing rarely get out of hand (+ you have whiter teeth after cleaning, which is especially nice for tea addicts like me :)) and they x-ray every two years or so.

reply
In USA insurance companies do have standard code and cost for procedure. Then I found out my son dentist was charging the insurance for « sealant » on all adult teeth every 6 month when my son in fact did not have adult teeth yet. I tried reporting as fraud to to the insurance company and they did not care at all and did nothing.
reply
Ive had this exact thought from my maxillofacial surgery recommended by an orthodontist, but the same applies for cosmetic/any elective surgeries as well.

The only person you consult with is the doctor/surgeon, who has all the incentive to downplay the risks. Their benefit is both financial and ramping up their resume

reply
Even if they don't own the business, there's still the risk of the profit motive interfering with proper care - the business owners are going to put as much pressure as they can, one way or another, in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, on their dentists to push for expensive treatments. Bonuses, performance reviews, off-hand comments, and so on.
reply
I think you could "split the profession" into diagnostic dentists that recommends what needs to be done, and another set that implements the recommended procedures.

Don't know how much effect it would have, but it should cut down the suspicion.

I don't think anything stops dentists from working like this today?

reply
The procedures a dentist recommends are influenced by the amount of debt left to pay off on their clinic buildout, or paying for their second or third home. It’s basically impossible for me to trust a dentist.
reply
Yep, if they see a cavity, they have an option to drill it or leave it and see if it won't progress based on good oral hygiene. The money hungry ones will drill even at the slightest dent that may form a deep cavity. They get paid per drill. Go figure.
reply
[flagged]
reply