←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: 0.601s | source
Show context
agentultra ◴[15 Oct 24 13:41 UTC] No.41848509[source]▶
I am all for evidence-based medicine making its way into dentristry if it's lacking... but if you're someone who is worried about cumulative exposure to X-ray length radiation, what is the dosage? And can we compare it relative to to say, millimeter scanners at the airport or a domestic flight?

I was under the impression that the digital machines they use these days are:

1. localised 2. very, very low dose

replies(3): >>41849545 #>>41849555 #>>41849604 #
pgwhalen ◴[15 Oct 24 15:22 UTC] No.41849545[source]▶
I have the same question. Why should I care? It's not an extra cost to me, so the radiation would be the reason, but I assume it's quite minor.
replies(1): >>41849626 #
zamadatix ◴[15 Oct 24 15:31 UTC] No.41849626[source]▶
I assume you mean it's covered by some sort of insurance (private or public) in which case you are paying for it you just don't really control how much you pay by individually opting in or out.
replies(1): >>41849636 #
1. pgwhalen ◴[15 Oct 24 15:32 UTC] No.41849636[source]▶
True, but dental insurance is so cheap relative to medical insurance.
replies(1): >>41850195 #
2. skybrian ◴[15 Oct 24 16:23 UTC] No.41850195[source]▶
If your teeth are in good health (no work done in years and none expected), paying out of pocket for dental appointments might still be cheaper. Though that assumes you could cover an unexpected expense - this is effectively self-insuring.
replies(1): >>41850603 #
3. rootusrootus ◴[15 Oct 24 17:00 UTC] No.41850603[source]▶
> Though that assumes you could cover an unexpected expense

Given how low the typical (non-DMO) coverage limits are for dental insurance, this is probably reasonable for many people.