Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

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)!

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.

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?

What's extra fun is that that insurance only covers treatments to a fairly low amount, just slightly higher than the price of your regular checkups.

(That said, I believe dental issues that are the result of e.g. accidents do get covered by the default care package.)

I've been self-employed for years now (USA), and never buy dental insurance, because it's not really insurance, it's basically a non-taxable way for companies to give their employees extra money. Buying it as self-employed persons is basically just giving the "insurance" companies your own money.