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

91–100 of 390 posts

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

#91

Post by underbiding »

lesuorac wrote: post #51
kart23 wrote: post #29

Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?

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/

the studies are about outcomes of parachute use writ-large ("gravitational challenges"), not just helicopters.

Only reason I'm being pedantic here is because if the study was in-fact looking at parachutes from helicopters, it could actually be plausible that parachutes had no improvements when used with helicopters. Most, if not all pilots, don't wear parachutes because there's not enough time to jump out of a crashing helicopter to deploy one and the blades would probably hit you anyway (unlike a plane which you could glide for some time, helicopters are notoriously more likely to fall straight like a brick)

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

#92

Post by replwoacause »

codr7 wrote: post #83
addicted wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fluoride may potentially have some negative effects but we’ve been drinking Florida red water across the world for several decades and different countries have added fluoridation at different times etc, and it’s hard to see any severe effect that would qualify it as anything close to “madness”.

Really, you don't see it?

Elaborate please?

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

#93

Post by absoflutely »

codr7 wrote: post #86
Vortigaunt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with everything else, the dosage makes the poison. I personally intend to stay vigilante to dihydrogen monoxide poisoning.

Yeah, but the doses are way different for different substances, as are the side effects. Edit: Haha, speaking about whooshing, use your brain or someone else will.

Whooshed right over your head.

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

#95

Post by tiagod »

caseyy wrote: post #90
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…

I think most private dentists charge about £20/$25 for a radiography in the UK. In the US, this pricing seems also available - https://www.teethtalkgirl.com/dental-health/cost-for-dental-... . Interestingly, I lived in Central Europe for a while and all my private dentists just used visual inspection for teeth. I never had an issue with that, all decay was spotted in time and in many cases earlier than with the x-ray…

Same experience in Portugal. I've only had a dental x-ray before removing wisdom teeth.

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

#96

Post by Ferret7446 »

bsimpson wrote: post #22
pavel_lishin wrote: post #3

I'm going to also throw anecdotes into the bucket: three dentists completely missed a cavity on one of my rear molars (wisdom teeth) until I mentioned pain, and then they poked around physically and said, "oh yeah, that's a big one."

Your anecdote corroborates one of the key points in the article: > For instance, a 2021 systemic review of 77 studies that included data on a total of 15,518 tooth sites or surfaces found that using X-rays to detect early tooth decay led to a high degree of false-negative results. In other words, it led to missed cases. The article isn't just saying you're getting unnecessary radiation. It's also saying that relying…

Does it catch cases though? If so, it doesn't mean it isn't worth it just because it misses cases.

Also, this may be a good application for AI. I would assume this is an issue with dentists being able to read X-rays carefully and not that the X-rays are unable to capture the signs.

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

#97

Post by t-writescode »

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…

All I'm seeing here is insurance, yet again, over-complicated or increasing the price of things and dentists doing what they can to continue to make a buck while they're severely underpaid for their other procedures.

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

#98

Post by mlyle »

lesuorac wrote: post #51
kart23 wrote: post #29

Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?

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/

Your comment is misled.

This is a systemic review. A RCT would absolutely find a difference. The whole point of this satire is to point out that there's not always studies on what you want to know. "No randomised controlled trials of parachute use have been undertaken"

Flossing has absolutely been studied. Professional flossing seems effective at combating gum disease. Telling people to floss doesn't seem to be. It's unclear why (is it just compliance effects? are people educated on how to floss still ineffective? etc.)

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

#99

Post by mlyle »

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.

> It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.

I think the real point is that systemic reviews often will have a pretty tilted set of included studies, because they are influenced by what things researchers choose to study.

Indeed, you probably couldn't publish a study saying that parachutes work; it's not an interesting enough finding for publication. So the only stuff you'll find, in many cases, are studies that buck the prevailing wisdom.

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

#100

Post by mlyle »

bsimpson wrote: post #60
thyristan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be true for some people. Look at the lower right one on the xray here: https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/wisdom-teeth.html

Unless you wanna see an adviceanimals take on a hairy ballsack, you've gotta open that incognito. I don't think Jamie wants HN traffic on his blog.

You just copy and paste the url, so that the referrer is unset.
Post reply on HN