←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: 0.626s | 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 #
1. mywacaday ◴[15 Oct 24 10:45 UTC] No.41847176[source]▶
My dentist back in the 80s didn't even wear gloves, he was an older man but I can't imagine gloves were not required then or even when he would have trained in the 40s or 50s.
replies(2): >>41847202 #>>41848900 #
2. bonoboTP ◴[15 Oct 24 10:51 UTC] No.41847202[source]▶
Is your opinion based on evidence? Sorry for sounding harsh, the article is about evidence, but your comment seems to be more based on feels / ick / sheen / vibe of squeaky cleanliness. If it's imagine vs imagine: I imagine that a washed and disinfected hand without open wounds has no measurable risks, and the tactile feedback the dentist gets may improve the treatment.
replies(1): >>41847868 #
3. zoky ◴[15 Oct 24 12:29 UTC] No.41847868[source]▶
> I imagine that a washed and disinfected hand without open wounds has no measurable risks

To the patient maybe. On the other hand (so to speak), if I were gonna spend my day sticking my fingers in people’s mouths, I’d want to wear gloves.

replies(1): >>41848383 #
4. red-iron-pine ◴[15 Oct 24 13:30 UTC] No.41848383{3}[source]▶
people with infected, nasty mouths too. ain't just gonna be the routine inspection and flouride treatment, something foul be brewing in some of their faceholes, and now its all over your hands.
5. salad-tycoon ◴[15 Oct 24 14:19 UTC] No.41848900[source]▶
Non sterile gloves are more for the wearer not the patient anyways. Assuming effective handwashing.