←back to thread

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

(arstechnica.com)
352 points keithly | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 21:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pandatigox ◴[15 Oct 24 05:59 UTC] No.41845382[source]▶
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 hopefully not scamming you)!
replies(13): >>41845600 #>>41845764 #>>41846436 #>>41847074 #>>41847971 #>>41848039 #>>41848503 #>>41848894 #>>41848929 #>>41849355 #>>41849576 #>>41850511 #>>41850865 #
crimsoneer ◴[15 Oct 24 08:50 UTC] No.41846436[source]▶
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, but when it's teeth we're like "oh well, lol", continues to mystify me.

replies(9): >>41846657 #>>41846676 #>>41846685 #>>41846699 #>>41847176 #>>41847273 #>>41847797 #>>41848386 #>>41850321 #
michaelt ◴[15 Oct 24 09:27 UTC] No.41846685[source]▶
> 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.

replies(3): >>41846755 #>>41848000 #>>41848399 #
1. exitb ◴[15 Oct 24 09:37 UTC] No.41846755[source]▶
If I decided to charge my customer specifically for indenting my code, I imagine they might be interesting in evidence that they're getting their money's worth.
replies(2): >>41846781 #>>41847161 #
2. vardump ◴[15 Oct 24 09:42 UTC] No.41846781[source]▶
They'd probably want to pay if you were coding in Python.
3. appendix-rock ◴[15 Oct 24 10:43 UTC] No.41847161[source]▶
No. They might trust your professional judgement, and not all professional judgement has roots in academic publications.