Misleading advertising – What is our duty as dental professionals towards our patients and the public?

There are currently several media adverts on radio and television in which “experts” confidently inform the public of their unique kinds of toothpaste which not only strengthen but can rebuild enamel and lost tooth substance.The concerns raised in this paper relate to pharmaceutical companies preying on uninformed, concerned, and often-compromised consumers to promote their products. To this end, some make fallacious claims, misrepresent or overinflate their products' therapeutic potential, which all overtly or covertly create false hopes and unrealistic expectations. The profession needs to collectively identify a body that will monitor the information presented to the public by dental manufacturers, advertising bodies, and social media websites. If we stand by and say nothing, we agree with the data and legitimize the product. Dental clinicians need to be more accountable, active, and visible on television, social media sites and in popular publications providing educational information and, if necessary, dispelling false perceptions. We have a duty to the publi

Probing Status Quo Bias in Dentistry

The status quo bias in dentistry refers to a practitioner's preference for certain treatment modalities and resistance to contemplating the need for a change. Lack of updating skills and amending their work routine accordingly can result in them providing treatment that is dated or even totally obsolete. It could even be detrimental to their patient's oral health and open them up to the risk of litigation. The concept of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) was introduced to try enforce clinicians to improve their knowledge and skills, and keep abreast of current best practice recommendations. However, it should not be seen as a mere points collecting exercise that has little effect on bringing about changes in their work. Dentists need to continually review their work, and make adjustments when necessary in order to do better and be better. Only then canthey claim to be acting in their patients’ best interest and fulfilling their duty of beneficence

The effect of off-axis seating on the marginal adaptation of full coverage all ceramic crowns

INTRODUCTION: No studies on the marginal gap or internal fit of crowns have reported the effect of non-axial seating which may often occur inadvertently clinically. AIM: Therefore this in vitro study sought to investigate the off-axis seating of CAD/CAM crowns and its effect on the marginal gap and internal fit. METHOD: A standardised crown preparation on a typodont tooth was used to design and mill 30 crowns with a flat occlusal surface. Ten Zirconia (Dentsply Sirona, Germany), 10 Enamic (Vita, Austria), and 10 Brilliant Crios (Coltene, Switzerland) crowns were milled, Ave of each milled with a luting space of 100µm, and Ave of 200µm. The marginal gap was measured in two and three dimensions after luting with silicone on a 3D-printed metal replica. Seating occurred axially, at 5° buccally and 5° lingually. The silicone was used to calculate the internal fit RESULTS: Axial seating with a 100 µm luting space obtained the smallest marginal gap, irrespective of material or luting space. 3D measurements were larger than 2D measurements, but not significantly. The maximum off-axis gap was 117µm, on the opposite side to which pressure was applied. CONCLUSIONS: Care must be taken clinically to ensure that luting takes place in an axial direction only

Survivorship bias and its implications in dental research and literature

What does the Texan sharpshooter, the World War 2 American air force, The Taj Mahal, cherry farming, and dentistry have in common? They have all been the subject of Survivorship bias. This paper will discuss the concept of survivorship bias in research by using examples of flaws in study designs or interpretation of data. It aims to serve as a caution to practitioners of the need to be aware and critical when reading literature and manufacturers' reports before making decisions regarding materials choices and treatment protocols to follo

The “contagious” clinician

The many new airborne viral pathogens such as coronavirus (Covid-19), the novel variant (SARS-CoV-2), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory distress syndrome (MERS), have brought about a whole new avalanche of problems. These airborne pathogens are all highly contagious and transmissible, especially in the dental setting where the procedures and machinery used may generate enormous amounts of aerosol spray. This is an ideal vector for air/ droplet spread. Most dentists have implemented screening procedures to determine if their patients are well enough to be treated, and have begun wearing a full gamut of personal protective clothing (PPE). Nonetheless, a concern that has received limited attention in the literature is the “contagious clinician” who continues to work and who may pose a risk of infecting their patients. This paper explores both the patient’s rights to quality care in a safe and healthy environment, as well as the clinician’s rights to determine for themselves if they are mentally and physically competent to practice. It also poses questions about whether health care practitioners can be mandated to be inoculated against potentially life-threatening and highly infectious agents

Technicians and Dentists: A catch 22 situation?

Dental technicians who regularly receive poor quality impressions and records are often faced with professional and ethical concerns as to how to handle the situation. They may choose to complete the task to the best of their abilities. Other options are to alter the casts to try to improve the situation and then complete the prescription, contact the dentist and discuss the issue, contactthe patient, contact the medical aid, report the practitioner to the HPCSA, or refuse to do the work. Their latter actions have potentially negative implications for them, and will certainly sour working relationships. At worst, they may lose the dentist’s support. This paper explores ways in which dentists and techniciains can foster collegial and mutually beneficial relationships from early on in their careers. This will not only promote better communication, and improve the quality of work produced by them, but it will also serve the best interests of their patients and the profession as a whole

The “contagious” clinician

The many new airborne viral pathogens such as corona-virus (Covid-19), the novel variant (SARS-CoV-2), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory distress syndrome (MERS), have brought about a whole new avalanche of problems. These airborne pathogens are all highly contagious and transmissible, especially in the dental setting where the procedures and machinery used may generate enormous amounts of aerosol spray. This is an ideal vector for air/ droplet spread. Most dentists have implemented screening procedures to determine if their patients are well enough to be treated, and have begun wearing a full gamut of personal protective clothing (PPE). Nonetheless, a concern that has received limited attention in the literature is the "contagious clinician" who continues to work and who may pose a risk of infecting their patients. This paper explores both the patient's rights to quality care in a safe and healthy environment, as well as the clinician's rights to determine for themselves if they are mentally and physically competent to practice. It also poses questions about whether health care practitioners can be mandated to be inoculated against potentially life-threatening and highly infectious agents.https://www.sada.co.za/the-sadjam2022Prosthodontic

Technicians and dentists : a catch 22 situation?

Dental technicians who regularly receive poor quality impressions and records are often faced with professional and ethical concerns as to how to handle the situation. They may choose to complete the task to the best of their abilities. Other options are to alter the casts to try to improve the situation and then complete the prescription, contact the dentist and discuss the issue, contact the patient, contact the medical aid, report the practitioner to the HPCSA, or refuse to do the work. Their latter actions have potentially negative implications for them, and will certainly sour working relationships. At worst, they may lose the dentist’s support. This paper explores ways in which dentists and techniciains can foster collegial and mutually beneficial relationships from early on in their careers. This will not only promote better communication, and improve the quality of work produced by them, but it will also serve the best interests of their patients and the profession as a whole.https://www.sada.co.za/the-sadjam2022Prosthodontic

Is it better to be good or to do good?

People have contemplated what it entails to be good and to do good. Philosophers propose that being good is an idea about yourself or others, while doing good is an action, towards yourself or others. Other theorists feel that those who want to ‘be good’ actually want to ‘be seen as good’, while those who strive to ‘do good’ are more concerned with following some calling or moral character. If we consider the dental situation, it raises the question of whether the motivation to do good should reign over the practical delivery of good dental treatment. This brings up many new considerations related to being good and doing good, and whether we are looking at good in terms of the practical performance of the clinical work or in terms of addressing the patient’s best interests and welfare. This paper will explore some of the interesting dilemmas that clinicians may face in their daily practices. It aims to raise their awareness of the differences between patients’ demands, actual needs, as well as their own philosophy towards treatment provision