Question:
This is not just some "jargon" or marketing ploy. This is a
philosophy and a commitment to our patients. My own dental
practice has been described as "Bauhaus" in that it follows
many of the principles from that school.
Its characteristics are "clear lines" and simplicity of
design coupled with minimally invasive procedures.
Functionality is key. We incorporate many of the elements of
"cosmetic dentistry" where those elements coincide with our
own treatment philosophy.
Too much has already been said about cosmetic dentistry.
It took me several years to understand what "cosmetic
dentistry" is. Should not all dentistry be "cosmetic
dentistry?" Of course it should.
You can only know a practitioner's commitment to "cosmetics,"
adhesion dentistry and minimally invasive procedures if you
have need of this type of care. If you want every single
tooth ground down to a stub so that you can have some metal
and porcelain cemented on top, then you will, of course, have
no use for minimally invasive procedures.
A patient presented with a tooth where a pretty large amalgam
restoration had become dislodged. There was little
retention. What to do? The resulting bonded composite
obviated the need for some root canal therapy, post and
crown. This restoration is exceedingly beautiful and
anatomically perfect. The functionality is restored.
Answer:
It seems that the dental profession is more prone to maximum rather
than minimum treatment. Rather than delay invasive techniques, more
dentists prefer to crown teeth rather than fill them, replace fillings
because there "seems" to be leakage, replace fillings because there "may
be" decay underneath. Dental schools seem to teach the principles of
"remove and replace" rather treat and wait.
Where has the principle of helping the body do its own healing gone? Are
all dentists so arrogant that they feel that they will accomplish the
making of a perfect mouth, to the exclusion of any previous dentist who
might have worked on the patient's mouth.
I have always felt that minimal invasive techniques are better than the
repair or replace principles used by present dentists. When it comes to
the human body, I feel the mechanisms for self-repair are usually best.
Perhaps being fee oriented has taken the place of conservative treatment.
Let me see if I got this correct. Watch
moderate decay until it invades the pulp
chamber and a root canal is needed. Don't
remove tartar and plaque with subgingival
scaling, wait till the tooth becomes so
loose in the socket that pus oozes out. I
think you are confusing minimally invasive
procedures with standard of care dentistry.
Do most dentist do minimally invasive
procedures?, SURE!!! The sealants they or their
staff place on deep pits and fissures. Fluoride
treatments, smaller and smaller bonded
restorations, oral hygiene instructions,
cariology testing, etc. Please don't confuse
your ideas with science and research.
Although these two terms are used interchangeble,
I think there is a subtle difference. By definition
aesthetics implies artistic, whereas cosmetic is
the art of beautifying the body. Therefore, a well
sculpted and polished complex amalgam restoration
can be aesthetically done. Even though it may be
functionally excellent, because of its color it fails
the definition of cosmetic dentistry. The same could be
said of a crown or composite. They may be excellent
in terms of form and function, however if the shade
wrong is this in fact a cosmetic result?
