LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 29 , Issue 3
May/June 2016

Page 207


Editorial: On Patient-Mediated Qualitative Treatment Concerns

George Zarb


DOI: 10.11607/ijp.2016.3.e

These are exciting yet anxiety-provoking times for prosthodontists. The past three decades animated and largely defined the speed of change in our traditional treatment protocols as we absorbed osseointegration and CAD/CAM techniques into routine treatment planning. The interval also provided scope for other disciplines to rethink treatment directions—especially in periodontics—and for general dentists to expand their prosthodontic scope. The main beneficiaries of treatment techniques were of course partially and completely edentulous patients, although those with advanced periodontal disease were also grateful recipients of the new protocols. Nonetheless, interdisciplinary fault lines, together with a near-populist implant therapy approach backed by strong commercial initiatives, remind us that compelling patient-mediated concerns—often related to finances and age—tended to fall between the cracks and remain insufficently prioritized.

Dentists continue to deal with lingering mixed feelings about quasi-herodontic treatment narratives as opposed to prudent and relatively inexpensive ones. Moreover, traditional oral rehabilitation concerns are readily challenged by a panacea mindset that mixes implantomania with exclusive quantitiative research conclusions influenced by professional pride and different degrees of faith in biotechnologic advances. A squall of treatment-planning ambiguity has emerged to complicate patient management in the context of global and dramatic increases in life expectancy and shifts in societal pyramids. Reliance on impressive implant therapy outcomes should not automatically be applied to aging patients. A more serious commitment to addressing prudent and economic patient-mediated needs as an outcome of qualitatively based clinical research now needs to be acknowledged and addressed, since extensive coverage of exciting treatment breakthroughs should not exclusively dominate patient management. Anxiety-provoking as it may sound, dentists must recognize that we are undergoing our own so-called systems revolution. We need solidarity in our diverse clinical research efforts to avoid regarding biotechnologic advances as either panaceas or disruptive technology. Instead, they are welcome adjuncts for expanding qualitatively determined routine therapy.

Nico Creugers and Dominique Niesten kindly accepted the IJP’s invitation to share their views on this very important topic.

— George Zarb, Editor-in-Chief


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help