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

271–280 of 390 posts

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

#271

Post by rootusrootus »

mikedelfino wrote: post #225
Barrin92 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Your assumption is that the floss is removing something that brushing does not. Ask your dentist why you should floss and the answer is not removing occasional lodged pieces of food from between your teeth, but cleaning under the gum line. There is no evidence to suggest it works that way, this is what the long term studies have determined.

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

#272

Post by FollowingTheDao »

ap99 wrote: post #218
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is the biggest reason we need universal healthcare.

I would say education is a more appealing solution to this problem than universal health care. People similarly get unnecessary work done on their car to boost dealership profits. Do you want to create a government agency to budget how much we can all spend on car repairs and then take it out of our taxes?

This is not about education, it is about morality. So maybe they do need an education, but let that be in empathy and moralilty.

And why can't we have education AND universal healthcare? I want a government agnecy (the people) to control the morality of corporations and private equity. Like we have laws against fraud already that protects us from "unnecessary work done on their car to boost dealership profits".

Adding still, why would anyone be against universal healthcare? I mean it is the biggest insurance pool you can create and that immediately lowers costs.

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

#273

Post by rdtsc »

tdeck wrote: post #43
rdtsc wrote: post #11

> "Financial aspects of dental radiography also deserve further study," Feit added No joke. That is a major money maker. There is minimal cost per-use and your insurance pays $200 for it (my last one was $186.00 for instance). The dentists would be crazy not to recommend them as of often as possible. Fluoride "rinses" are likely up there too. Rinse for a few seconds and they charge the insurance $50 or something for…

At least fouride rinses provide some benefit. Although you can get much more benefit from buying a bottle of Act and rinsing with it every day.

Fair point. And with fluoridated water and toothpaste, is the dentist checking the dosages? It's probably fine anyway, but paying an tens of dollars for it seems excessive. And like you said, get a bottle for rinsing at home, it's a lot cheaper than $40 per rinse.

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

#274

Post by zwieback »

EasyMark wrote: post #268
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…

Kind of off topic, I had a dentist say “that needs to come out” for a wisdom tooth. I was of the opinion “it doesn’t hurt and it’s not even sensitive, so it stays in”, it was the only cavity I’d had in a very long time and I haven’t had any since. So we argued for 10 years over it to the point it became a joke between us. Well finally it became sensitive (not painful, but sugar and cold would set off a little pain) a…

I had the same thing with my dentist about one of my remaining wisdom teeth, we went back and forth for five years but it finally got bad enough to do something. I opted for a crown though and it's been good and not too bad out of pocket.

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

#275

Post by PawgerZ »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #263
cruffle_duffle wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This applies double or even triple for vets. There is a lot of cash to extract from pet owners who would “do anything”, no matter how unnecessary or ineffective, for poochy.

I don't think this is charitable. I've been lucky to have a view into the back office of a veterinary clinic and the fact of the matter is it's just difficult medicine to practice. Every vet I know works hard to save their clients money. If pet owners are inclined to take the "do anything" route it can open a lot of doors. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Was this a PE owned vet clinic? They're much more common today and the practices have slowly become more predatory.

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

#276

Post by psunavy03 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #262
pizza234 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How is "if you don't floss for a month it hurts when you floss" evidence flossing is good for you? It's the same phenomenon as something like the calluses guitar players get. If they take a few weeks off, it'll hurt a bit when they play. That doesn't mean the activity improves their health. It means if you poke a part of the body enough it handles being poked better.

Because the bleeding is caused by inflammation of the gum tissue from the germs that get trapped up there when you don't floss. This then slowly breaks down your gums. This is why your dental hygienist uses that metal pick to measure under your gums; it should only go in 2-3mm and not bleed.

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

#277

Post by vardump »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #204
vardump wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of dental x-rays they took? Panoramic (shows the whole row of teeth in one image), CBCT (volumetric 3D) or intraoral (a digital sensor or film was put inside your mouth)?

Panoramic and intraoral.

Weird. Panoramic image should have shown the decay. I wonder if there were some image quality issues at the edges.

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

#278

Post by jjeaff »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #200
fazeirony wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is it right here - 'use up your dental insurance'.

And it is the biggest reason we need universal healthcare.

I actually don't see how universal health care would help in this situation. Bad actors are going to try and milk whatever system pays the bills. Capitalism "should" be pretty good at taking care of this kind of stuff. I'm not sure why insurance companies aren't better at reining in these kind of abuses.

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

#279

Post by pgwhalen »

agentultra wrote: post #231

I am all for evidence-based medicine making its way into dentristry if it's lacking... but if you're someone who is worried about cumulative exposure to X-ray length radiation, what is the dosage? And can we compare it relative to to say, millimeter scanners at the airport or a domestic flight? I was under the impression that the digital machines they use these days are: 1. localised 2. very, very low dose

I have the same question. Why should I care? It's not an extra cost to me, so the radiation would be the reason, but I assume it's quite minor.

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

#280

Post by ericmcer »

agentultra wrote: post #231

I am all for evidence-based medicine making its way into dentristry if it's lacking... but if you're someone who is worried about cumulative exposure to X-ray length radiation, what is the dosage? And can we compare it relative to to say, millimeter scanners at the airport or a domestic flight? I was under the impression that the digital machines they use these days are: 1. localised 2. very, very low dose

My dentist said something like "it exposes you to less radiation than eating a banana", but she also left the room when the machine was firing.
Post reply on HN