DISGUSTED WITH THE ADA

Today I resigned from the ADA. The ADA working Group on Lasers headed by Charlie cobb published on the ADA website for public consumption.



http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/po...sers_final.asp



I would like to encourage all LANAP dentists to contact the ADA and express your disappointment in their statement.





John S. Findley, D.D.S., president
American Dental Association
211 East Chicago Ave.
Chicago, IL 60611-2678
312-440-2500

1410 East 14th Street
Plano, Texas 75074-6359
972-423-4595
Fax 972-424-6712
findleyj@ada.org

I am writing about the recent ADA Laser Position Statement now published on the ADA website. I find the ADA’s position to be inaccurate and misleading, especially with regards to LANAP. [As an ADA member] I am disappointed in this final statement that was released without review by the clinicians who developed the LANAP protocol,

Specifically is in not accurate to say, “…the therapy included ‘intrasulcular applications’ to remove ‘sulcular epithelium’.” This study reviewed “moderate to advanced” periodontal disease, and as such periodontal pocket applications of the Nd:YAG were investigated.

The second paragraph on the LANAP protocol appears to be conjecture, opinion, and speculation, and is hardly worthy of an official position statement from the ADA. This paragraph and therefore the ADA’s position statement are seriously flawed. Specifically,

1. This study was, at the time, the 4th largest human histology – with a control group – in the prestigious, peer-reviewed periodontal scientific literature. To call it a “pilot validation” or a small sample size is an attempt to minimize the significance of the findings.
2. It is a completely false representation to state that the “study was not blinded”. The study was blinded to the patient (proximate teeth were treated in all but one case), blinded to the calibrated clinical examiner, and blinded to the histologist.
3. It is disingenuous to state the sample size was small. This was a human histological study that involved the block sectioning of the study along with bone. Human Investigation Review Boards (“IRBs) regard human experimentation very seriously. IRBs regard block section removal of teeth even more rigorously. Consequently, (IRBs) bone block sections of human tooth/bone histology is not performed on the same numbers of patients and teeth, as a clinical study comparing established treatment method and that does not involve intention creation of bony defects
4. The placement of the pre-treatment notches were fully explained in the peer-reviewed manuscript in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry (IJPRD). Yukna, RA; Carr RL; Evans, GH: Histologic Evaluation of an Nd: YAG Laser-Assisted New Attachment Procedure in Humans. Int J Perio Rest Dent 27(6):577-587, 2007
5. It is absolutely baffling what the Council can possibly mean in the statement regarding extrapolation to early and moderate chronic periodontitis, when considering the beneficial outcomes from advanced periodontitis. This statement is more argumentative than enlightening.
6. Similarly argumentative is the Council’s comments on the creation of a stable fibrin clot (referred to as a “seal” by the Council). If the authors do not understand the benefits of creating a stable fibrin (1st connective tissue) clot, then one must question the expertise of the Council and its members in wound healing 101.

ADA American Dental Association