←back to thread

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

(arstechnica.com)
352 points keithly | 5 comments | 14 Oct 24 21:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.063s | 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 #
pprotas ◴[15 Oct 24 09:23 UTC] No.41846657[source]▶
Not directly related to the topic at hand, but it amazes me how Dutch healthcare insurance does not cover dental care by default, and you have to get an extra package for that. As if dental health is not part of my regular health? Why are teeth treated differently from the rest of the body?
replies(7): >>41846872 #>>41847066 #>>41847070 #>>41848357 #>>41848363 #>>41848559 #>>41849928 #
1. viraptor ◴[15 Oct 24 10:20 UTC] No.41847020[source]▶
You lost at "European" and "everywhere in EU". The system is different between countries. For example Poland covers free annual review and basic procedures. (even if it's worse quality than on a private insurance) You're just trolling or really misinformed.
replies(1): >>41847206 #
2. throw4950sh06 ◴[15 Oct 24 10:52 UTC] No.41847206[source]▶
You said the same thing I said... You only get basic care to survive, nothing else.

The system is different but this aspect is pretty much the same everywhere around here.

replies(1): >>41847354 #
3. throw4950sh06 ◴[15 Oct 24 10:54 UTC] No.41847215[source]▶
I have taken my 3 decades of personal experience - hundreds of situations - and combined it with what my family, friends and acquaintances experienced. It's really not just me. And the national news say the exact same thing - healthcare is expensive, inadequate and unavailable (you wait for months - if you find a doctor that would take you, which is definitely not guaranteed).
4. viraptor ◴[15 Oct 24 11:19 UTC] No.41847354{3}[source]▶
Having a repeating free review and treatment is above basic care to survive. Both compared to many other places in the world now and historically.
replies(1): >>41847540 #
5. throw4950sh06 ◴[15 Oct 24 11:49 UTC] No.41847540{4}[source]▶
I very much disagree, that's the most basic of basics. I don't care much what's happening in low income areas and especially not how it used to be historically. And the point is what happens when an issue is discovered - it's nice that they do checkups, it's not so nice that the treatment available is again only the most basic available and anything above is very expensive and not covered even partially.