Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 390 posts

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#221

Post by red-iron-pine »

zoky wrote: post #203
bonoboTP wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your opinion based on evidence? Sorry for sounding harsh, the article is about evidence, but your comment seems to be more based on feels / ick / sheen / vibe of squeaky cleanliness. If it's imagine vs imagine: I imagine that a washed and disinfected hand without open wounds has no measurable risks, and the tactile feedback the dentist gets may improve the treatment.

> I imagine that a washed and disinfected hand without open wounds has no measurable risks To the patient maybe. On the other hand (so to speak), if I were gonna spend my day sticking my fingers in people’s mouths, I’d want to wear gloves.

people with infected, nasty mouths too. ain't just gonna be the routine inspection and flouride treatment, something foul be brewing in some of their faceholes, and now its all over your hands.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#222

Post by pizza234 »

crimsoneer wrote: post #138
pandatigox wrote: post #109

Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefull…

Slightly worrying that evidence-based dentistry wasn't the default position (though not surprising). I'm always kind of amazed that when I look up the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing, the evidence just...doesn't seem to be there. Let alone all the myriad of dental products from various mouth washes, tooth pastes, brushes and water picks. How we've ended up regulating medicine to the nth degree,…

> the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing

I'm always baffled by all the discussions about flossing, as it's something that can be very easily verified empirically: one can just floss for a month, then stop doing it for another month, then resume and get a feeling for how the gums react. If they bleed or burn (lightly), then the efficacy is evident; if not... lucky person! No need for research either way.

In my case, I don't need to floss daily, but I still need to do it regularly. Two weeks without flossing, and I'll definitely feel the burn once I resume flossing.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#223

Post by koolba »

fma wrote: post #210
pandatigox wrote: post #109

Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefull…

My younger dentist did 2 xrays for me in a row (6 months apart) I don't remember exactly what was done last time and only knew when they pulled up the xrays and I saw the date of the last one. They hygienist sits you down and just does it as if it is normal. I googled and found what you mentioned. I am low risk for cavities. Those exact words came out of his mouth. I was pissed off after the fact, because I'm paying…

> I slowly see why there are people who do not trust medical professionals.

The opinions I trust the most are the doctors that have previously told me that no treatment is necessary and the problem will resolve on its own.

The more often they’ve said that, the more I’d value the opinion, especially if it suggested something invasive.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#224

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #151
crimsoneer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly worrying that evidence-based dentistry wasn't the default position (though not surprising). I'm always kind of amazed that when I look up the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing, the evidence just...doesn't seem to be there. Let alone all the myriad of dental products from various mouth washes, tooth pastes, brushes and water picks. How we've ended up regulating medicine to the nth degree,…

> Slightly worrying that evidence-based dentistry wasn't the default position I see what you mean. But I'm a computer programmer, and if someone asked me to find a top quality academic study proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's a good idea to indent your code - I couldn't point you to one.

[deleted]

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#225

Post by mikedelfino »

Barrin92 wrote: post #49
rootusrootus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, flossing cannot be proven to help. But it cannot be proven to hurt, either, so current recommendations are to do it anyway.

>But it cannot be proven to hurt, either, so current recommendations are to do it anyway. That's not a meaningful standard for any health intervention. If I'd apply everything to my body that wasn't proven to hurt I'd spend a hundred bucks every morning and two hours in the bathroom. If "it doesn't hurt" was sufficient basis for a recommendation our doctors would tell us to swallow homeopathic medicine every morning.…

I'm inclined to believe that preventing food particles from rotting between my teeth is a measurable impact in itself, regardless of whether it directly impacts my health.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#226

Post by mensetmanusman »

moneywoes wrote: post #209
mensetmanusman wrote: post #208

Remember that a dry mouth etches teeth away due to higher acidity levels. Drink lots of water folks.

any suggestions for waking up with a dry mouth daily?

Every so often I charge up by setting myself a 30 minute timer to drink a bit of water. After like 3 hours my hydration levels are high enough that my mouth waters and my alertness peaks.

Hard to balance at night, but a humidifier using distilled water near the sleeping area will slow the rate of drying.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#228

Post by smrtinsert »

fma wrote: post #210
pandatigox wrote: post #109

Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefull…

My younger dentist did 2 xrays for me in a row (6 months apart) I don't remember exactly what was done last time and only knew when they pulled up the xrays and I saw the date of the last one. They hygienist sits you down and just does it as if it is normal. I googled and found what you mentioned. I am low risk for cavities. Those exact words came out of his mouth. I was pissed off after the fact, because I'm paying…

> I slowly see why there are people who do not trust medical professionals.

I think the slider isn't between trusting and not trusting medical professionals - it's between being a passive and active patient. We have to involve ourselves in our care. Educate yourself, get second opinions, connect with fellow patients and national experts. And ffs, do not listen to yt/x/tiktok people for anything.

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#229

Post by conductr »

pandatigox wrote: post #109

Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefull…

> and hopefully not scamming you

You’ll soon learn that dental practices are increasingly private equity owned and the dentist have profitability KPIs that factor into their employment and compensation

Re: Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

#230

Post by marcosdumay »

hervature wrote: post #55
lesuorac wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you'll find it useful that a double-blind study found no improvement in outcome from use of a parachute when jumping out of a helicopter. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

That's not at all what that "study" says. It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.

IMO, it's a critique on the "no study shows it exists, therefore it doesn't exist" attitude.

If you manage to do double-blind studies for every single piece of knowledge out there, kudos for you. There's nothing bad in this.

Anyway, it's on topic for several sidelines people are raising. But not on topic for the main article.

Post reply on HN