So, the result is the trend away from the customary, conventional, standard restorative treatments, and toward “minimally invasive” and even “non-invasive” treatments.
These fashionable offerings basically ignore the bacterial etiology of dental decay and soft tissue inflammation and infection, with a nod to making it easier, more acceptable to the child, and thus to the parent. Certainly those of us who treat children have experienced the question, "Johnnie, do you want to have your tooth fixed today? (Variations; “pulled", "pulled out", "numbed", "have a shot," etc.)
What child would not answer, “No”? We could go into the point that’s why children have parents, to make the difficult decisions that will most benefit their children, but even that point is not the point here.
So, it is becoming de rigueur to treatment plan the more acceptable treatments that do not address the bacterial etiology - hear me - as well - and keep everyone happy. Even our “evidence base” finds the Hall SSC technique of covering a decayed tooth with an SSC (often without any decay removal) as acceptable.
So the virulent organisms are locked into the tooth where they can travel through dentinal tubules into the pulpal circulation and into the systemic circulation. My job is not to judge the research, nor the treatment, but to have you consider - and question - what the sequelae to these directions may be.
"Minimally invasive” techniques include diet counseling and sugar substitutes, sealants, antimicrobial agents and chemotherapeutic approaches, remineralization of early lesions, GIC, fluorides, CPP-ACP, and others.
Let’s think about those first. Have you many parents in your practice who truly take the information to heart and...
a) change the child’s diet ,
b) actually use the antimicrobial agents, fluorides, and other chemotherapeutic agents over even a short period of time, and regularly?
It begs the question, “How’s it workin’ for ya?”
Then the minimal surgical interventions of decay, including ART, chemo-mechanical caries removal (Sodium hypochlorite + mechanical removal), air abrasion, lasers, Hall technique, Silver Diamine Fl, and so on - while these are newer on the scene, how do you feel those approaches transform the child’s history and future of decay? (An attorney in my family responded that on behalf of all attorneys, he might just mail a thank you note to Dr. Hall, whoever he is, for his technique that makes it just a matter of time before he earns a very good living for attorneys.)
It’s the “How’s it workin’ for ya?” again.
HOWEVER, we as pediatric dentists LOVE to please the parent and child. Most folks who go into dentistry are...
a) in it to help people and change lives, and...
b) approval addicted such that it is a common goal to do whatever possible to get people to LOVE you. (That includes not charging either anything for some procedures, or at least not much, not “bothering the child patient if possible, using GA, sedation, etc.)
So, these less invasive, hated treatments appeal to us as well as to the parents and child. Sort of. We convince ourselves it is good.
That train is carrying other cargo as well.
~ Johnny Cash
Doctor, are you dancin’ on the tracks?
Dr Chris Baker
Dr. Chris Baker is Past President of the American Orthodontic Society, a pediatric dentist and teacher of orthodontics, An author, dental practice consultant, mentor, and a current or former faculty member of three U.S. dental schools, Dr Chris is based in glorious Texas, USA. but lectures around the world.
Text and images
© 2019 Dr Chris Baker