Charges for private dental treatment

ltlmiles5

It would be excellent if drilling could be done away with, or limited to rare instances, as it alwalys sounds scary, to anyone!

When I was young in malaysia, they drilled into my tooth when I was about 7, without any injections etc, and that scarred me for a long time! It was only after I was 16 and started wearing braces, and had to see the dentist every week that I got over my fear of dentists!

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith wrote:

I have looked into Ozone and still need to be convinced!

I'll be surprised if you were convinced after slamming Ozone as a £10,000 gimmick.

Toothsmith wrote:

'Some of the better dentists' is quite a contentious phrase!!!!

The dentist featured on the tv programme 10 years younger uses Ozone.

NICE will be reviewing Ozone in 2008 once they have some long term data so it might be available to the NHS sometime in the future. I didn't recall anyone from NICE saying Ozone was an expensive gimmick though.

I find it incredible that the conventional treatment of teeth decay is rather an hit and miss affair. Fluoride has made our teeth denser making it difficult for dentist to identify decayed teeth on x-rays. It makes me wonder how many normal teeth have been ruined by dentists eager to use the drill and fill method.

By the way Toothsmith, does your Surgery uses air abrasion or is this an expensive gimmick?

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith

Air abrasion is incredibly messy!!!!

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith wrote:

Air abrasion is incredibly messy!!!!

Small price to pay if it means that more of your tooth is preserved!!!

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith

You can make very little holes with small drills and care.

I do agree with you over air abrasion, I just don't like it. The difference between one of my little holes and a little air abrasion hole does not, to me, justify the mess and airbourne particles.

Others do like it and good luck to them, it is a good technique.

There are many things in many professions that look like really good ideas on paper. The practicalities are different, and sometimes the manufacturers claims are a bit on the 'creative' side.

Another good example is digital x-rays. All the advertising blurb for them extol the virtues of 1/10 of the radiation of normal x-rays.

When you look deeper though, you find the manufacturers are comparing their product against 'A' speed X-ray films. These went out with the Ark, and most practitioners are using 'E' speed and some are on to 'F' speed. The comparison with these film speeds means that digital X-rays use only very slightly less radiation.

Again - hardly worth the £15-£17k investment.

Part of being a professional is being able to look beyond the hype for the undisputed truth.

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith wrote:

Part of being a professional is being able to look beyond the hype for the undisputed truth.

Hmmm, part of being a professional patient is the ability to look beyond the hype of dentists in this country!!!!!

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith

I find it very hard to see where you're coming from. :undecided

Are we agreeing or having an argument?

You seem to be on the side of high priced whizzy gadgetry that is totally unproven but could easily help a dentist justify very high bills. :huh:

You seem impressed by this technology because it appears in the practice of a dentist who is 'on the telly'. Despite the fact he seems keen to do highly expensive treatments in the mouths of people who up until recently have totally neglected their teeth. There is no mention on these telly shows about a long term committment to that patient. Who pays the care and maintenance costs of these people once the telly cameras have packed up and moved on to a garden makeover show? :think:

Yes hype does need to be sorted out from fact. Which one of us is doing that?

If however we are in agreement..... :kisses3:

Undisputedtruth

I hope I have not rattled your cage. I feel no need to argue. Though you seem to dismiss new technology very quickly. However I would take your views and advice more seriously if you had actually used products such as Ozone rather than virtually saying it must be rubbish because I can't afford it for my surgery. As for the treatment being expensive for the patient then I would have to say that ltlmiles5, see start of thread, would saved £125 had his daughter used the Ozone treatment (£25). In fact his daughter might not needed treatment at all if the Ozone's tooth decay probe had diagnosed that no treatment was needed. Remember, detecting tooth decay by using x-rays is often unreliable because the rays have difficulting in penetrating a more denser tooth caused by adding fluoride in water.

I fully agree with you about patients taking preventative measures and building relationships with dentist. Unfortunately this may result in patients not getting the best deal, quality of treatment and choice. For example if I was one of your patient and took your word as gospel then I may not know that there may be better treatments for me.

Undisputedtruth

Toothsmith

Undisputedtruth wrote:

Though you seem to dismiss new technology very quickly.

Do you know how long Ozone has been around? 3 years at least.

In that time I have been to one sales presentation about it (Which sounded very like your posts) and about half a dozen lectures on Minimally Invasive Dentistry where opinions (From senior academic lecturers and professors) varied from 'completely useless' to 'unproven'. I do not think it's 'completely useless' but it is by no means a cure all.

If that is a bit of a quick judgement, I'm sorry!

Undisputedtruth wrote:

However I would take your views and advice more seriously if you had actually used products such as Ozone rather than virtually saying it must be rubbish because I can't afford it for my surgery.

Where did I say that - or even imply it? If a piece of technology came along tomorrow for £50,000 with scientific backing and proven effectiveness, it would be in my surgery within a week - well a month tops. That's what banks are for. If I had bought every 'revolutionary' toy that ever was invented for dentistry, I'd not have a cupboard big enough for the ones discredited after a few years.

Undisputedtruth wrote:

As for the treatment being expensive for the patient then I would have to say that ltlmiles5, see start of thread, would saved £125 had his daughter used the Ozone treatment (£25).

My understanding of Ozone is that it's done over 3 applications 6 weeks apart. That's £75 plus the cost of the remineralizing pastes. That's assuming the little girl co-operates with having the tubes & suction cup attached to her tooth (Yes I know it's simple and painless, but if the kid's nervous it may still be very difficult) So that would be 3 sedation sessions as well. £360

Then, of course, there could easily be the filling charge in a couple of years when it's found the Ozone hasn't worked.

Undisputedtruth wrote:

In fact his daughter might not needed treatment at all if the Ozone's tooth decay probe had diagnosed that no treatment was needed.

Unless they bundle them together now (And they didn't 5 months ago) the Ozone machine doesn't come with a 'tooth decay probe' This is a seperate machine called a Diagnodent. The first lecture I attended where these machines were discussed was over 7 years ago, so sorry if I'm being a bit quick to dismiss things again, but they were not regarded as very accurate then. They give a LOT of false positives.

Over the past few years, better protocols for calibrating them have come into existance, but it can take a lot of time to get an accurate reading for each tooth.

Undisputedtruth wrote:

Remember, detecting tooth decay by using x-rays is often unreliable because the rays have difficulting in penetrating a more denser tooth caused by adding fluoride in water.

Detecting decay on X-Rays is unreliable because of the very fast films that are used nowadays. The older, slower films had much better contrast. We're onto F speed films now, I was training at the time of C speed. The Lecturers I had thought they were rubbish, and wanted to go back to A speed! It's all to do with regulations and radiation doses!

Flouride is NOT added to the UKs water supply - unless you come from Birmingham, or one or two other smaller places which I forget exactly where.

Undisputedtruth wrote:

I fully agree with you about patients taking preventative measures and building relationships with dentist. Unfortunately this may result in patients not getting the best deal, quality of treatment and choice. For example if I was one of your patient and took your word as gospel then I may not know that there may be better treatments for me.

I am glad you have a dentist you are happy with.

Toothsmith

I have just re -read the HealOzone website you posted.

I notice it mentions Julian Holmes at the end.

True, he did do a PhD on Ozone and championed it. He has since left dentistry, and was last heard of in South Africa doing something in Corporate Entertaining.

Ozone has not made him his fortune!

I did a quick Google, as I'd not heard of him in a while, and came up with THIS which has a very interesting little comment at the end.

I went down the list a little, and then came across THIS which seemed to back up part of the claim!

there is also quite a good article HERE from 2002 which puts the other side of the ozone case.