I recently attended a dinner party with a group of dental friends. It was an unusual gathering because among the guests there were a number very successful scientists, engineers and mathematicians. As the evening warmed up we engaged in a conversation about the history of science and business. An older, "highly accomplished" scientist described a feeling that science and engineering in the United States was not progressing as it once did. He felt many of the large corporations were now managed by individuals that did not possess the scientific knowledge about how their own products worked. He said this was unlike the "Golden Years", when companies were managed by product inventors, and management decisions were based upon product performance rather than profits, dividends, or consolidations. Sound familiar?
This got me to thinking about dentistry. Is there a difference between large industrial corporations today and business in the dental field? This is certainly not true in the dental office! Many friends have told me how happy they are not to be in the same situation as some physicians, managed by HMO's or hospital administrators. The independence of dental professionals in the US is a tradition. In corporate dental manufacturing, however I don't think this is true. Within recent years, I have observed that several of the major dental companies no longer employ people that are clinically trained to evaluate their products.
This got me to thinking about dentistry. Is there a difference between large industrial corporations today and business in the dental field? This is certainly not true in the dental office! Many friends have told me how happy they are not to be in the same situation as some physicians, managed by HMO's or hospital administrators. The independence of dental professionals in the US is a tradition. In corporate dental manufacturing, however I don't think this is true. Within recent years, I have observed that several of the major dental companies no longer employ people that are clinically trained to evaluate their products.
A by-product of this is that long-term clinical studies have nearly disappeared from the dental research community. By this I mean, two year, three year or five year studies on product evaluation. These studies used to be common among the IADR or AADR research presentations. No more! We are told they are too expensive and take too long. Rapid product changes are a consequence of this as well. Consider that the actual product may not be on the market, or even recognizable, when the study results are published. I have heard this lament from other researchers. Dental materials research, once was a hallmark for the concept of evidence-based dentistry. Today I am not so sure this exists anymore. How can we deal with this situation?
What are the consequences of this? I guess on the surface there is mis-leading product information and sometimes product introductions occur without sufficient product testing. The larger impact of this is its effect upon patient care and the reputation of OUR profession. In response to this problem I also observe that many companies are now taking a very limited focus on just their own product and do not engage in the larger aspects of its use in dentistry. These companies are avoiding the bigger picture as to systemic effects or even accompanying product recommendations. Why would they?
So next time you hear of a "new" product or instrument, or become aware of something new to you, I hope you will ask the speaker how the product has been evaluated, how long, and what were the results? In other words, ask about its history. This may sound like having to be a researcher, but those Golden Years for us also appear to be gone.
