Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / May 2005
Rumor has it...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 20:20 GMT Which if any of the following statements are true:
1. Quackwatch, run by Stephen Barret is funded by the Aetna
2. Some dentists with investigative power on certain state boards are also paid consultants for Aetna!
3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna
4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100% diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using their power to investigate/harasses any dentist which disagrees with their stance on what is the most profitable procedure in dentistry
Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 21:52 GMT Just a couple of comments
> Which if any of the following statements are true: > > 1. Quackwatch, run by Stephen Barret is funded by the Aetna I have not heard this. Can you provide some more information/references?
> 2. Some dentists with investigative power on certain state > boards are also paid consultants for Aetna! This would not surprise me in the least. I believe if you look at state regulatory boards nationally, you will find plenty of potential foxes guarding the chicken coops.
> 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence > of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which > , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a procedure known as "cavitat" per se. Claims may of course be submitted for a similar osseous surgical procedure, and the consultants of Aetna or any other insurance carrier is within their rights to question reimbursement for any service outside the particular service contract. Therefore, I doubt very much in the extreme that these procedures are costing Aetna any astronomical sum. The dental boards of course are charged with regulating the standard of care, and may choose to take action against licensees they feel are practicing outside the standard of care. You may of course choose to disagree with the standard of care. I may as well; but unlike you I do at my peril. The issue as to whether insurance companies have undue influence on the standard as understood by state licensing bodies is a legitimate one that I agree bears watching carefully.
> 4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100% > diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using > their power to investigate/harasses any dentist which disagrees > with their stance on what is the most profitable procedure in > dentistry Again, I would ask you to give evidence for this statement. I have never, NEVER heard any dentist (much less a dental board)claim that x-rays are 100% accurate.
Steve
 Signature Cut the nonsense to reply
clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 22:28 GMT > Just a couple of comments > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have not heard this. Can you provide some more information/references? This is a rumor I heard. I can't verify that it is true/untrue but I may get more information. I thought somebody here might also know if this was true.
> > 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence > > of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which > > , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna
> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a > procedure known as "cavitat" per se. Claims may of course be submitted for a similar osseous surgical procedure, and the consultants of Aetna or any other insurance carrier is within their rights to question reimbursement for any service outside the particular service contract. Therefore, I doubt very much in the extreme that these procedures are
> costing Aetna any astronomical sum. > The dental boards of course are charged with regulating the standard of > care, and may choose to take action against licensees they feel are > practicing outside the standard of care. You may of course choose to
> disagree with the standard of care. I may as well; but unlike you I do > at my peril. > The issue as to whether insurance companies have undue influence on the > standard as understood by state licensing bodies is a legitimate one > that I agree bears watching carefully. I'm not sure that any Insurance companies ever cover the cavitat. You are right, they probably don't. I think in at least few cases procedures similar to cavitational surgery have been covered but in many cases they don't cover it. However if these are proven to valid diagnoses insurance companies could still be sued, as was mentioned in the threads disscussing the Cavitat lawsuit, for a number of reasons.
More importantly though the dental boards seem to be targeting dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery mainly because the existence of these legions is not accepted as possible without a positive x-ray, especially in non-acute forms.
> > 4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100% > > diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve In fact in practice this is true. Many oral surgeons are refusing to treat patients with various jaw infections (shown to be present in later surgies/biopsies) based on false negative x-rays, and dentists who remove root canals that are not clearly infected according to x-rays, (based on current accepted standards) are subject to attack by state boards.
I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one reference.
Joel M. Eichen - 29 Apr 2005 22:47 GMT > > Just a couple of comments > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but I may get more information. I thought somebody here might > also know if this was true. REPLY
Did you hear the rumor from the same rumor mill that explained how amalgam poisons people?
Joel
> > > 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence > > > of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one > reference. Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 23:01 GMT >>Just a couple of comments >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > be sued, as was mentioned in the threads disscussing the Cavitat > lawsuit, for a number of reasons. Of course, anyone can be sued for anything. However (and I'm not up to date on the case law here) liability for failure to provide coverage for any particular medical treatment is limited under ERISA. I know that there have been attempts to overturn the protections granted the insurance companies, but I'm not aware that any have succeeded.
> More importantly though the dental boards seem to be targeting > dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery > mainly because the existence of these legions is not accepted > as possible without a positive x-ray, especially in non-acute > forms. Dental boards will target unprofessional conduct--that is their job. We could argue as to whether cavitational surgery constitutes unprofessional conduct, but I won't. I have no reason to think the true believers are being other than totally sincere in their convictions.
>>>4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100% >>> diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one > reference. Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective. Certainly it is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates have been neither expanded nor perforated. Furthermore, biopsies are frequently done of intraosseous lesions. However, a surgeon should have some justification for performing osseous surgery. There should (in other words) be SOME evidence indicating surgical intervention is necessary--whether radiological or otherwise.
Steve
 Signature Cut the nonsense to reply
clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 23:38 GMT > Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very > different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective. Certainly it However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon ever operates and the patient dies.
> is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on > radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other words) be SOME evidence indicating surgical intervention is > necessary--whether radiological or otherwise. You've lost me, I'll have to look up intraosseous and osseous, and cortical (I just spent 5 minutes looking but still can't find it). However if either an intraosseous or osseous infection is present without pain it seems unreasonable that no action can be taken if it is not clear on an x-ray since it is unlikely that anything else could defintely be linked to infection. Yet infections do exist inside and outside of the jawbone/teeth that do not show on x-ray OR cause pain, and that are not culturable in the blood. Also, surely a patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it is not necesssarily infected, yet the boards appear to be indirectly forcing patients to keep these treatments.
cz
Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 23:56 GMT > However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present > but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has > cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon > ever operates and the patient dies. If there is an infection there should be some clinical signs. I assume the patient presents with some sort of symptom, and some clinical or radiologic sign points to infection. Same with cancer. There is some reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence.
>>is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on >>radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > exist inside and outside of the jawbone/teeth that do not show on x-ray > OR cause pain, and that are not culturable in the blood. There should be some reason to suspect infection is present, right? Or am I missing something?
Also, surely a
> patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it > is not necesssarily infected, yet the boards appear to be indirectly > forcing patients to keep these treatments. No, a patient has no absolute right to mandate treatment. An informed patient has the right to refuse treatment, as does a doctor. The only treatment a doctor may not ethically refuse to do is in a lifesaving situation where the patient is unable to give consent. The doctor is absolved of responsibility related to failure to obtain informed consent by good samaritan laws.
Steve
Steve
> cz > > > > >
 Signature Cut the nonsense to reply
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 01:03 GMT > > However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present > > but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > radiologic sign points to infection. Same with cancer. There is some > reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence. Well, what is happening with some of these osteomyletic/osteonecrotic infections is that some legions cannot be seen. In my case a local OS found soft bone and there where radilogic indications of erosion of the maxilla and borderline radiolucent infection, but a lot of patients are finding, me included that the extent of these infections is not clear at all from regular CT or panorex.
In fact I know one person who recently had a jawbone graft for osteonecrosis at a well known research university. They found schlerotic bone, mush bone and what appeared to be a cavitation, though none of it apparently was evident on x-ray before hand.
pain, and that are not culturable in the blood.
> There should be some reason to suspect infection is present, right? Or > am I missing something? The patient obviously knows in jaw osteomyletis but the symptoms as in leg osteo are general so that the OS cannot rule jaw infection in or out. Many of these legions (especially chronic OM) do not show up well on radiograph or MRi because of the thinness of the bones in the jaw. This was also found in some of the studies done for the FDA on the cavitat, so in essence these infections are silent.
> Also, surely a > > patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, a patient has no absolute right to mandate treatment. An informed > patient has the right to refuse treatment, as does a doctor. However in the case of a RC the dentist has altered the tooth or introduced a foreign substance in the root so IMO the patient has a right to have that removed, just like a patient could probably demand a hip implant be removed. Also the patient could have originally opted for an extraction so I do not think it is ethical to later force them to keep the RC tooth
cz
Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 02:50 GMT > Well, what is happening with some of these osteomyletic/osteonecrotic > infections is that some legions cannot [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > as in leg osteo are general so that the OS cannot rule jaw infection in > or out. Help me out here. Why and how does a patient present to a doctor to have this diagnosed? Does the patient know something is wrong, or is it discovered as an incidental finding? I am assuming there is pain, fever, inflammation that brings the patient to the doctor, but you say that these infections are frequently silent. I know you had health problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if someone just had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason.
Many of these legions (especially chronic OM) do not show up
> well on radiograph or MRi because of the thinness > of the bones in the jaw. This was also found in some [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > cz No one is forcing anyone to keep a tooth. I'm sure an enterprising patient will find someone willing to do it. Of course, any dentist who agreed to extract a tooth without being able to document a clinical reason for doing so (sorry, patient request does not qualify) should be prepared to defend against a charge of negligence. A patient can NOT consent to negligent treatment.
Steve
 Signature Cut the nonsense to reply
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 04:47 GMT > Help me out here. Why and how does a patient present to a >doctor to have this diagnosed? Does the patient know something >is wrong, or is it discovered as an incidental finding?
To answer this question I am drawing on my own expriences as well as others I have talked to. But I am not an expert.
Basically as I understand there are three types of possible infections osteonecrotic/cavitational, osteomyletic, and perhaps some types of infection with a lot of bacterial/fungal growth in the bone, probably included in some terminology as cavitational.
osteomyletic infection is usually acute or chronic. Acute infection does show clearly on radiographs and I think is fast moving so soon produces evidence infection as leg and arms.
People with chronic osteomyletic infection are usually aware that something is wrong (especially if it damages the nerves and believe me sometimes it does) and go to the doctor where they usually initially misdiagnose it. Eventually tests may be done such as a thin sliced CT which show some erosion of the bone or an MRI which hows possible problems in the nerve, or sinus problems may develop from the jaw infection visible on the CT as polyps on the bottom of the sinus, mucosal thickening and or fluid level or sinus tracts, but usually the extent of the infection in the jawbone is severely underestimated by the scan. Once surgery is done findings may include, mushy bone, inflammation, bacterial/fungal infestation, sinusitus, holes in the floor of the sinus etc and even with treatment the infection has a strong tendency to recur, i.e. as is the case with leg and arm chronic om, it is difficult to eradicate even with abx.
I think in some cases, like my case the amalgam seems to leak, even depositing copper on the nerve pulp in one case I know of. This damages the surrounding jawbone which allows these infections to defeat the regular jawbone defenses and really set in.
In other cases these infections are traced to poorly done root canals, use of fosomax or even cracks in the tooth.
I am assuming there is pain,
> fever, inflammation that brings the patient to the doctor, but you say > that these infections are frequently silent. I know you had health > problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if someone just > had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason. No, I could tell something is wrong. No pain, which for seem reason seems more common for men with OM and less for women. i could tell something was wrong because the jaw felt funny. Eventually I went to a local OS to have an extraction, but he didn't clean the bone above the root apparently, as I expected and just commented that some of my jawbone was unusully soft when he (burred down?) a jagged area, "like an 80 year old". Six months later the infection spread and I really got sick. Then had a CT which confirmed problems and decided to have surgery done by someone who would really get all the infection out since the infection extended over three/four teeth (and I still have infection in the left maxilla) . The only biopsy I had was after surgery.
(The UMD was very reluctant to read the CT scans even after I was referred by another local OS becasue of the soft bone and wanted to do high power panorex ,but I refused, because the surgeon seemed very unknowledgeable uncomfortable with the surgery and I thought that I should get an opinion based on the CT before doing anything else or getting any more radiation.)
I actually have the scans of the infected jaw area and a 3D scan of the area on CD which I can email you , plus the radiological report and the email response from UMD about the CT, but I'll save that for another day because I'm getting a little tired.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 17:49 GMT >> Help me out here. Why and how does a patient present to a >doctor > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > the email response from UMD about the CT, but I'll save that for > another day because I'm getting a little tired. Interesting history--thanks for sharing it. There are a lot of metabolic bone diseases that probably fly under the usual radar. I'm not able to comment on whether mercury or copper deposition may have been a factor in your case, but clearly there is a whole spectrum of conditions that may be recognized as metabolic (osseous dysplasia) or of uncertain pathogenesis, incl. the compromised bone metabolism seen with bis-phosphonate use. I agree that because of the differing training seen with different specialties, one or another may be more inclined to lean a certain way in the differential diagnosis, and mistakes are certainly made. I personally know a woman who developed shoulder girdle pain a couple of years ago. She had a hx of breast ca, surgery and radiotherapy about 25 years before. After multiple radiographic studies the concensus was metastatic ca, but after opening sugically all that was seen was degenerated bone, and then the presumptive diagnosis was osteoradionecrosis. Two years later she suddenly developed chest pain, and studies now reveal a pathological rib fracture. No one is sticking their neck out now for a diagnosis. We'll have to see. These situations are frustrating for most clinicians. I can only imagine how patients must feel.
Steve
 Signature Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 18:59 GMT .
> Interesting history--thanks for sharing it. > There are a lot of metabolic bone diseases that probably fly under the > usual radar. I'm not able to comment on whether mercury or copper > deposition may have been a factor in your case, but clearly there is a An additional comment. Basically, the problem filling was on tooth 3 and 4, which was very near the infected areas of the maxilla. I have the original x-ray's of the filling around here somewhere which I will post if I can find them and scan them in. There is no question in my mind that whatever is happening in the jaw was precipitated by the filling and I don't have any indication of a metabolic disorder. In fact I have one image on the CT disk which shows what appears to be a tunnel going from some of these teeth up into the jaw bone.
Also, many other people with chronic OM feel that the cause is staph or psuedococci?, that are normally considered normal flora, but get into the bone where they shouldn't be as a result of physical or chemical trauma. In fact, all these things are true of OM in the leg, so even from that standpoint it seems likely that a simmilar disease process can exist in the jaw.
> whole spectrum of conditions that may be recognized as metabolic > (osseous dysplasia) or of uncertain pathogenesis, incl. the compromised [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Brooklyn, NY > 718-258-5001 Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:50 GMT > Help me out here. Why and how does a patient present to a doctor to > have this diagnosed? Does the patient know something is wrong, or is it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if someone just > had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason. REPLY
Many first find out when they read Jan Drew on SMD where she conmtinues to continue to warn people.
*IF* anyone has HEALTH!!!!! problems or BREAK DANCE!!! problems they gots it.
Joel
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:47 GMT > > However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present > > but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > radiologic sign points to infection. Same with cancer. There is some > reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence. REPLY
Steve,
This ties in with lack of ability to Break Dance. If you gots NICO you cannot Break Dance.
Joel
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 17:57 GMT >>>However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present >>>but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Joel Joel--
While the acronym is too cute by half, and the proposed treatment and patina of persecution worn by the advocates of NICO is off-putting, I'm not ready to conclude that there aren't conditions out there that are (appropriately or not) falling under the general heading of NICO. Since you recognized and acknowledged some of the new osseous metabolic problems earlier than most, I'm guessing you also recognize that some of these lesions may in fact exist, even if you (as I do) bristle at the alternative health zealots that have co-opted the issue.
Steve
 Signature Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 13:59 GMT Any dentist in this world is aware of spongiform bone, cortical bone, etc.
The unaware patient believes its more like a solid block of Formica.
A little time with a microscope could sure help out ClintonZ.
PS- To ClintonZ. Make sure your eye is at the right end or the images like very tiny.
Joel
> >>>However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present > >>>but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Brooklyn, NY > 718-258-5001 Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:46 GMT > > Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very > > different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective. Certainly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon > ever operates and the patient dies. Hey Dude!
This is why we have dentists. You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to pathology and histology.
Take a few courses or read a few textbooks.
Joel
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:45 GMT > >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a > >>procedure known as "cavitat" per se. Claims may of course be EXPLANATION
Terminology.
Cavitat is the Denver company that is sueing Aetna for refusal to pay and sueing for claiming that such a thing as NICO even exists.
Joel
PS- The technology is good for treating what is perhaps a non-existent disease.
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 19:22 GMT > EXPLANATION > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Joel Who sued Aetna? Oh, Aetna, sued Who. Well Who is on first? (for the trial).
> PS- The technology is good for treating what > is perhaps a non-existent disease. Well in the FDA trials fo the cavitat they did find jaw legions. Cavtiations definately exit. aetna is going to run into BIG trouble trying to prove they don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis.
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:02 GMT > > EXPLANATION > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Who sued Aetna? Oh, Aetna, sued Who. > Well Who is on first? (for the trial). Cavitat sued Aetna. Aetna is a huge company and employs lawyers as defense strategy not as plaintiff.
Here is the COMPLAINT.
http://quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/RacketeeringAction.htm
Joel
> > PS- The technology is good for treating what > > is perhaps a non-existent disease. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't > work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis. Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:04 GMT Here's the case:
12. After Plaintiffs applied for FDA approval in 2001, and at all times hence to the present day, Quackwatch, NCAHF, Barrett, Baratz, Dodes, and Schissel disseminated and published on the internet and in other media to the public, including Aetna., among others, the Dodes & Schissel Paper and other information regarding the use and efficacy of diagnostic tools, such as the CAVITAT, in the detection of infected cavities within jaw bones, a condition termed neuralagia inducing cavitational osteonecrosis ("NICO").
13. Specifically, said these entities and persons asserted that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of NICO as a medical condition or the diagnostic methods used to identify the medical condition. They asserted that dental practice which engages the diagnosis of NICO is fraudulent and that the submission of insurance claims for such practice is insurance fraud and is a violation of dental licensing requirements. These assertions were false and misleading and defamatory.
> > EXPLANATION > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't > work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis. clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 21:44 GMT > > >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a > > >>procedure known as "cavitat" per se. Claims may of course be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Joel Aetna is sueing Who? Just one question. Does Who know he is being sued by Aetna?
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:04 GMT Aetna is not sueing. Aetna is the defendant.
Joel
> > > >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover > a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just one question. > Does Who know he is being sued by Aetna?
|
|
|