I find it interesting as well as frustrating to read guest editorials such as this one. Interesting because they often provide insight in to what other practitioners are doing and what can be learned from them. Frustrating because some of the guest editorials provide yet more evidence of the deterioration of the practice of general dentistry, from a science-based oral health care service to a profit-driven “cosmetology” business.
Dr. Roberts’ reasons given for dentists to provide botox are extremely weak. Basically she states that our patients are doing it anyway, so we may as well be the ones to perform it. One study she quotes found that botox makes people happier, thus influencing depression which in turn influences the health of the periodontium. Talk about a stretch. Why stop at botox? What about makeup, hairstyle, clothing? I often notice that when esthetic cases are presented in journals the “after” picture has a much more pleasing hairstyle than the “before” picture. Perhaps dentists are also “uniquely suited” to perform these services as well. Where does it end?
Dr. Roberts said it best herself in her first paragraph. “Has the profession gone mad?” Apparently so, I am afraid.
“Has our professionalism been cast aside in the search for money-making techniques that do little to serve our patients’ health and well-being and simply line the pockets of self-serving practitioners that cater to the latest whim the public demands?’ I think her editorial is better proof of this statement than I could supply.
Dr. Zane Zelsman
I must disagree with your March, 2010 editorial on Botox.
Dentists are not “skilled at assessing the balance and overall esthetics of the face”. Dentists are not dermatologists or plastic surgeons.
And when the editorialist advertises its own training course in the same issue (page 81)…I suspect a definite conflict of interest, foresee painful and expensive learning along the way, and “what the heck” esthetic results.
Dr. J. Victor Legault