Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 00:18:50 -0500
From: "ESCO automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Subject: ESCO Digest - 15 May 2006 to 19 May 2006 (#2006-15)
To: ESCO@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU

There are 4 messages totalling 144 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:
1. A much-needed step toward more evidence-based decisions -- open access.
2. Switching from one management software to another -- how easy and complete was it?
3. Another benefit of RPE in mouthbreathers.
4. Cone Beam vs digital Pan-Ceph

 

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:28:46 -0700
From: "Stanley M Sokolow" <overbyte@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: A much-needed step toward more evidence-based decisions -- open access.

If you have ever tried to research a clinical question that came up in making a clinical decision, as I have, you certainly must have had an experiece like mine. You can search for research studies in the US National Library of Medicine's MedLine database, for example, and find many that contain keywords you've chosen, but all you can read is a short abstract. When you try to read the full text of these possibly important studies, you run into a requirement that you either subscribe to the particular journal for one hundred dollars or more, or purchase a particular article, usually for a cost of about $30 each article, not even knowing if the article really contains relevant answers to your question. This is not conducive to answering clinical questions in an evidence-based manner. A few orthodontic journals have an open-access policy, for example the Angle Orthodontist and the Hellenic Orthodontic Review, but most journals are owned by publishers who don't allow open access to their journals, not even to their old archives. I can understand that a for-profit publisher would need to sell subscriptions, so a reasonable policy would be that articles in issues less than one year old would require a subscription or per-article fee, but after one year the access should be freely available on the Internet. That is not the way it's generally done, not even by our own professional associations' sponsored journals. Also, there's no reciprocity policy among professional associations around the world, so to read a European orthodontic journal for example, you need to subscribe to it, even though you are a current member with subscription to a different orthodontic association's journal in another part of the world. Without open access to published research, the quest for "evidence-based" orthodontic treatment is a long, slow, costly, difficult journey. What is particularly irksome is that much of this research is funded (in part or fully) by government grants. Why should public money be used to advance health science and yet have the fruits of that research money be locked away for private gain? That's not right. A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate which would make government-funded research that is published in a peer-reviewed journal available in full-text to the general public without charge over the Internet within 6 months after publication. The cost of maintaining such access would be paid by the agency funding the research.

This bill is explained at the website: http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&rid=237171 . Please write or email your own state's senator (if you are a U.S. voter) in support of that bill, and if you have any influence in your orthodontic organization, ask the organization to support it as well.

Stan Sokolow

 

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:10:02 -0700
From: "Stanley M Sokolow" <overbyte@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Switching from one management software to another -- how easy and complete was it?

I'm interested in hearing the experiences of ESCO members who have changed their office management software from one system to another. How easy was the data conversion? Was there a lot of hand-work required by your staff (or by the vendor's staff) to re-enter information that already was in your old system? Usually, some information is converted by the vendor of the new system using their own data conversion software, but not all of the data. What data was automatically converted into the new system, and what data was lost in the process? What software system did you convert from and to?

Thanks,
Stan Sokolow

 

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:31:30 -0700
From: "Stanley M Sokolow" <overbyte@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Another benefit of RPE in mouthbreathers.

While glancing at an open-access journal, I came across this recent article published January 2006: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/6/2 It says that in a study of 50 mouthbreathers treated with rapid palatal expansion (RPE) in their orthodontic treatment, it was found that the quantity of pathogenic and facultative anaerobic bacteria in the oropharynx decreased after RPE, suggesting that RPE may also have a beneficial effect by reducing the risk of upper respiratory infections. The full-text article is at that web site.

Stan Sokolow

 

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:37:16 -0400
From: "Roy King" <rkking@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Cone Beam vs digital Pan-Ceph

Dear ESCO,

I have been following the cone beam technology so I was intrigued about Ron Parsons comment that cone beam will replace pan-ceph soon. I still think cone beam has some issues that I am trying to resolve.

1) Cone beam has 5-7 times more radiation that digital pan-ceph so how do we justify the extra radiation when we take progress pan just to see root angulation or stage of eruption. How to we justify the cost ? This appears overkill. I am assuming that most of us cannot afford or have the room for both cone beam and digital pan-ceph.

2) It appears that the best application with cone beam concerning teeth is with the impacted cuspids. I would think that in those cases the oral surgeon would have the cone beam and thus let him incur the expense.

3) In those selective cases where you can not live without a cone beam then refer the patient to an office that has one. I am in a town of 40 dentist and we have 1 in town and 1 near our town.

4) In essence, what percentage of our existing patients need a cone beam?

5) Since so many colleages do a one step entry process for the orthodontic patient, they are spending less time analyzing the patient rather than more time. Thus there seems to be some hurdles for cone beam to overcome and it you think that it will get cheaper, the sales reps will tell you that you are dreaming. Thus is the cost and radiation justified for ALL patients. Again I love the technology but I have some questions. Respectfully, Roy King PS My tongue in cheek cone beam in my office is clinically visually the face and head of the patient and then examining the 2D pan-ceph to give me an 3D picture. Of course I have not figured out how to email the results yet. PS I was impressed with i-Braces because I still have nightmares from my early lingual cases. i-Braces are a must for anybody who maybe thinking of linguals.

PS If anyone knows how to keep the eye of a hurricane away from one's town, please let me know. We have had 3 in 13 months and we could use a rest.