←back to thread

352 points keithly | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.615s | 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 #
fma ◴[] No.41848039[source]
My younger dentist did 2 xrays for me in a row (6 months apart)

I don't remember exactly what was done last time and only knew when they pulled up the xrays and I saw the date of the last one. They hygienist sits you down and just does it as if it is normal. I googled and found what you mentioned.

I am low risk for cavities. Those exact words came out of his mouth. I was pissed off after the fact, because I'm paying out of pocket for this, and for fluoride treatment. I have in my records to not give me fluoride treatment but she called it "varnish" which caught me off guard.

I speculate the office got bought out by PE as dentists have changed over the last few years.

They also told my wife she needs a night guard. She's been wearing one for 12 years.

I slowly see why there are people who do not trust medical professionals.

replies(3): >>41848388 #>>41848495 #>>41850979 #
koolba ◴[] No.41848388[source]
> I slowly see why there are people who do not trust medical professionals.

The opinions I trust the most are the doctors that have previously told me that no treatment is necessary and the problem will resolve on its own.

The more often they’ve said that, the more I’d value the opinion, especially if it suggested something invasive.

replies(4): >>41848704 #>>41849075 #>>41849246 #>>41850182 #
cruffle_duffle ◴[] No.41849075[source]
> The opinions I trust the most are the doctors that have previously told me that no treatment is necessary and the problem will resolve on its own.

This applies double or even triple for vets. There is a lot of cash to extract from pet owners who would “do anything”, no matter how unnecessary or ineffective, for poochy.

replies(1): >>41849207 #
1. xyzzy_plugh ◴[] No.41849207[source]
I don't think this is charitable. I've been lucky to have a view into the back office of a veterinary clinic and the fact of the matter is it's just difficult medicine to practice. Every vet I know works hard to save their clients money.

If pet owners are inclined to take the "do anything" route it can open a lot of doors. I don't see anything wrong with that.

replies(4): >>41849451 #>>41850206 #>>41850488 #>>41851024 #
2. PawgerZ ◴[] No.41849451[source]
Was this a PE owned vet clinic? They're much more common today and the practices have slowly become more predatory.
3. consteval ◴[] No.41850206[source]
I've known a few people who worked in vet clinics, and they've all told me horror stories of how pets are mistreated. I'm talking left to sit in their own feces and urine overnight, fixed when they weren't supposed to be, injured during surgeries and then not communicated to owners.
4. cruffle_duffle ◴[] No.41850488[source]
That’s a good point. I’m unsure how to frame my observation in a way that makes vets look like they are intentionally doing something wrong. I guess what I’m saying is when I work with a vet it’s hard to know if the vet is going overboard with diagnostics and tests because me, the owner, want to “do everything I can” for my pet.

It’s a tricky subject to phrase correctly and way to early in the morning to come up with a good example.

5. DowagerDave ◴[] No.41851024[source]
I just can't reconcile this with my experience. The most charitable I can be is that these vets care deeply about the animals but treat cost as no obstacle or don't even recognize the cost.

>> If pet owners are inclined to take the "do anything" route it can open a lot of doors. I don't see anything wrong with that.

How about just like people-medicine: diagnostic tests when there is no likely treatment should not be proposed. Or charging 20-50x the generic cost for the same drugs humans use? The fact that some people will "do anything" when there's nothing that can be done is prone to abuse.