Rethinking the Twice-Yearly Dentist Visit?

This post is a response to a New York Times article titled" Rethinking the Twice-Yearly Dentist Visit" . It reports on a study that seems to indicate that not everyone should have twice a year cleanings, but instead each patient should possibly have a treatment schedule that is tailored to their individual risk factors for developing periodontal disease. I was not surprised to read later in the New York Times article that "Two authors of the study own shares in Interleukin Genetics, the company that makes the genotype test for interleukin-1. The company helped finance the study along with the National Institutes of Health."

While it is likely that some people do not actually require twice a year cleanings, how are we to determine who that patient is? I am sure that many dental hygienists do not need two cleanings a year and some of my patients who have tip top dental hygiene may also not require two cleanings a year, but most of my paitents do benefit from seeing the dentist and the hygienist at least twice a year and unfortunately many of my patients do not find their way into a dental office frequently enough.

Furthermore, people's immune systems are not steady state, but can vary from year to year depending on a whole host of issues. I really do not believe that every patient should be tested to determine whether they need their twice a year cleaning. If anything, I believe that twice a year cleanings should be covered by medical insurance, since poor dental health is correlated with other health problems.

In my opinion, there is a problem with much of our research on health in general, since it's funding often comes from commercial companies seeking to use the results of the study for financial gain. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the results of their studies, but there clearly are a lot of potentially great studies not being done because their is no funding for the research.

We all know that diet, exercise and our personal habits have a tremendous bearing on our health, but most research is oriented to finding the newest wonder drug or treatment to treat diseases. What I find distressing about the New York Times' article is that it seems to be aimed at giving people an excuse to not go to their dentist as often so that he or she can help provide preventive counseling and services. These services have very little down side and for most a potentially big upside. I hope that the Times article is taken with the grain of salt that it deserves!