←back to thread

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

(arstechnica.com)
352 points keithly | 2 comments | 14 Oct 24 21:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.693s | source
Show context
rdtsc ◴[14 Oct 24 22:06 UTC] No.41842547[source]▶
> "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 it.

replies(7): >>41842714 #>>41842963 #>>41843877 #>>41844118 #>>41845817 #>>41845904 #>>41848113 #
tdeck ◴[14 Oct 24 22:44 UTC] No.41842963[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>41843148 #>>41849437 #
codr7[dead post] ◴[14 Oct 24 23:07 UTC] No.41843148[source]▶
[flagged]
1. orev ◴[14 Oct 24 23:44 UTC] No.41843435[source]▶
If it was “highly toxic” it would be obvious because people would be getting sick or dying after ingesting it. Maybe it’s got some issues that aren’t obvious, but there’s not a clear answer.

However you don’t swallow mouth rinses like Act, so any nonobvious issue is also greatly reduced.

replies(1): >>41843815 #
2. codr7 ◴[15 Oct 24 00:52 UTC] No.41843815[source]▶
Or, it could be a contributing factor to any of the umpteen lifestyle diseases we're dealing with atm.

Not swallowing is great, but I'm sure the concentration is high enough for it to be absorbed anyway.