←back to thread

352 points keithly | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
pandatigox ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
mywacaday ◴[] 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 #
1. salad-tycoon ◴[] No.41848900[source]
Non sterile gloves are more for the wearer not the patient anyways. Assuming effective handwashing.