Qu'on voit.

If there were a cure for cancer, would certain members of the MEDICAL
community make it a patented or franchised treatment, unavailable to the
greater medical community without paying a franchisee fee?

I think not!

I am ashamed that there are unscrupulous dental practitioners who would
hold out to the public that "they" have a miracle cure for periodontitis
that is unavailable to other practitioners who do not pay a "franchisee"
fee. This is ludicrous!

If there were a cure for PD, then we would be all over it. Lasers, local
antibiotic treatments - (fibers, Atridox, Arestin}, prayers to St. Jude,
DO NOT WORK.

Treatment as a matter of Public Health, would be standard.

Let's be as scrupulous and even-handed as our MEDICAL colleagues. Don't
we want to be as respected as physicians and, ahem, veterinarians? Let's
get real.

What WORKS, should get LOTS of Press/publicity. What is ONLY a PROFIT
CENTER should be exposed for what it IS!

Invisalign might be a "breakthrough" for amenable ortho misalignments,
and Branemark surely had a point for the edentulous lower arch, that has
expanded our treatment horizons for any potentially missing or missing
tooth. But, PD is a major human disease process, unlike crooked or
missing teeth. It's an, albeit, painless process, until too late for Tx,
that one could/should consider similar to CA in medicine, especially
considering the 1920's and now modern day knowledge of the etiology and
systemic implications of untreated PD.

How could/should we withhold a major treatment breakthrough, - LANAP,
PerioProtect, Oxyfresh, Arestin, for solely a financial gain? Unless of
course, it isn't.

Get real. Don't try to defend the indefensible.

What I'm trying to say is, a gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick. We are
health-professionals and we should NOT be driven solely by the $ or
Pound or Euro. Yes, it is hard to run a small-business and generate a
profit, but we can and do turn a nice profit on cleanings, fillings
(alloy or composite, as you will), crowns, implants, partials, dentures,
yada yada. And, certainment, there is a place for periodontal therapy in
each and every dental practice - if it is a valid treatment.

But, unlike dental restorative therapy, which has not changed much in
20(ceramics) - 100(gold) yrs., should we be treating the dynamics of
modern day Periodontitis with proven therapies or new-age marketing
gimmickry? Should we be treating the patient's disease state or his/her
pocket-book/wallet?

I did not get into the health-professions to get rich, but to make a
difference by helping people (BTW, I am a libertarian, NOT a LEFTY.)
Maybe, my bad. Was I jaded by institutionalized dentistry? I guess that
after 10 years as a U.S. Army dentist, I did not realize the mercenary
attitude of private-practice U.S. dentistry. Again, my bad.

Periodontitis is a potentially deadly disease that should be
aggressively treated, not toyed with by using useless therapies. It
should not be a "profit center".

That's great. You obviously did not jump on Oxyfresh, and are not likely
to hook-up with PerioProtect. Please go to the site,
www.perioprotect.com, and see which of your colleagues have jumped on
the wagon. It's surreal, plug in your zip code and you can find all the
surrounding practices offering PerioProtect. You will be both surprised
and hopefully, dismayed.

Didn't we have a course in dental school as to how to evaluate clinical
literature?

There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

I have no strong negative opinions of lasers and perio.  I used my
water lase on a patient with 6 mm pockets between the UL canine and
1st remolar a year ago and yesterday those same pockets measured 2 mm.

So *cautious* *selective* use of new technology is something I support.

Jumping on a bandwagon and zapping everything greater than 3 mm to
create a huge new profit center is something that I would not support.

JMO,
D

On Jul 29, 8:20 am, Dartos <tuthjoc... at (no spam) myturbonet.com> wrote:
ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

I have no strong negative opinions of lasers and perio.  I used my
water lase on a patient with 6 mm pockets between the UL canine and
1st remolar a year ago and yesterday those same pockets measured 2 mm.

So *cautious* *selective* use of new technology is something I support.

Jumping on a bandwagon and zapping everything greater than 3 mm to
create a huge new profit center is something that I would not support.

JMO,
D

Agree....on technology and selective treatment. LANAP is a pocket
reduction procedure, and there are plenty of other periodontal
treatments still required a #15.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:57:44 -0700 (PDT), "ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com"





ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:20 am, Dartos <tuthjoc... at (no spam) myturbonet.com> wrote:
ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

I have no strong negative opinions of lasers and perio.  I used my
water lase on a patient with 6 mm pockets between the UL canine and
1st remolar a year ago and yesterday those same pockets measured 2 mm.

So *cautious* *selective* use of new technology is something I support..

Jumping on a bandwagon and zapping everything greater than 3 mm to
create a huge new profit center is something that I would not support.

JMO,
D

Agree....on technology and selective treatment. LANAP is a pocket
reduction procedure, and there are plenty of other periodontal
treatments still required a #15.

What is the BFD about "Laser Assisted New Attachment Procedure" ?

Crikey, remove the calculus and the pocket will resolve.
Yep, sometimes you have to open the tissue to facilitate
removal of all of the concretion(s), and to adequately root plane.

#15s and 12s are a helluvallotta cheaper than a laser.

The cost/benefit ratio to the patient is not justifiable
at this time IMO.

However if *you* **want** that particular instrument for
your own self aggrandizement, go right ahead.
Don't over sell or over charge for something simply done
with regular instruments and good technic.

Just don't try to sell me, or your patients, on the idea that:
        " *You* and *you only*, with your 'brand new expensive toy',
            can accomplish the mundane."

Go ahead, try to diagram that sentence !- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT), "ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com"





ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 31, 12:53 am, New... at (no spam) bix.nex wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:57:44 -0700 (PDT), "ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com"

ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:20 am, Dartos <tuthjoc... at (no spam) myturbonet.com> wrote:
ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

I have no strong negative opinions of lasers and perio.  I used my
water lase on a patient with 6 mm pockets between the UL canine and
1st remolar a year ago and yesterday those same pockets measured 2 mm.

So *cautious* *selective* use of new technology is something I support.

Jumping on a bandwagon and zapping everything greater than 3 mm to
create a huge new profit center is something that I would not support.

JMO,
D

Agree....on technology and selective treatment. LANAP is a pocket
reduction procedure, and there are plenty of other periodontal
treatments still required a #15.

What is the BFD about "Laser Assisted New Attachment Procedure" ?

Crikey, remove the calculus and the pocket will resolve.
Yep, sometimes you have to open the tissue to facilitate
removal of all of the concretion(s), and to adequately root plane.

#15s and 12s are a helluvallotta cheaper than a laser.

The cost/benefit ratio to the patient is not justifiable
at this time IMO.

However if *you* **want** that particular instrument for
your own self aggrandizement, go right ahead.
Don't over sell or over charge for something simply done
with regular instruments and good technic.

Just don't try to sell me, or your patients, on the idea that:
        " *You* and *you only*, with your 'brand new expensive toy',
            can accomplish the mundane."

Go ahead, try to diagram that sentence !- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like I said.......I'm not here to argue on the internet, I have much
better things to do....Patients to see....LANAPs to do. Let's wait a
few years and we can see if Laser gum treatment is here to stay.

Oh, I see, it is *now* inconvenient to defend your position.
I smell a bit of AlGore in your answer.

Translation of HuagYerSelf's statments for those in Rio Linda:

        "I don't have time to defend my position, there's too much
        money to be made off of this scam !"

I have nothing against laser dental treatment, it will likely
prove to be an important addition to our armamentarium.

However, at this time, the expense of such units (which
will inevitably come down) preclude it from the average
dental practice since the cost will passed down to the
patient.  Economics 101.

C-Ya,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 31, 12:53 am, New... at (no spam) bix.nex wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:57:44 -0700 (PDT), "ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com"





ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:20 am, Dartos <tuthjoc... at (no spam) myturbonet.com> wrote:
ahuangd... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be one strong negative opinion in here regarding
Periolase LANAP treatment.

I have no strong negative opinions of lasers and perio.  I used my
water lase on a patient with 6 mm pockets between the UL canine and
1st remolar a year ago and yesterday those same pockets measured 2 mm.

So *cautious* *selective* use of new technology is something I support.

Jumping on a bandwagon and zapping everything greater than 3 mm to
create a huge new profit center is something that I would not support.

JMO,
D

Agree....on technology and selective treatment. LANAP is a pocket
reduction procedure, and there are plenty of other periodontal
treatments still required a #15.

What is the BFD about "Laser Assisted New Attachment Procedure" ?

Crikey, remove the calculus and the pocket will resolve.
Yep, sometimes you have to open the tissue to facilitate
removal of all of the concretion(s), and to adequately root plane.

#15s and 12s are a helluvallotta cheaper than a laser.

The cost/benefit ratio to the patient is not justifiable
at this time IMO.

However if *you* **want** that particular instrument for
your own self aggrandizement, go right ahead.
Don't over sell or over charge for something simply done
with regular instruments and good technic.

Just don't try to sell me, or your patients, on the idea that:
        " *You* and *you only*, with your 'brand new expensive toy',
            can accomplish the mundane."

Go ahead, try to diagram that sentence !- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like I said.......I'm not here to argue on the internet, I have much
better things to do....Patients to see....LANAPs to do. Let's wait a
few years and we can see if Laser gum treatment is here to stay.