😓Yikes. Are we treating non-cavitations?

Good morning ya Scots!

There are some classic pieces of dental literature too important to keep behind a paywall..and this is a review on one of them. Enjoy! 🍻🍻

Today’s line-up:

• 🕳️What’s actually a cavity? Scottish kids help you determine what radiographic caries are ACTUALLY cavitated.

• ☕Coffee Break. Exocad AI videos and what’s the salary needed to buy a home in the most expensive American cities.

• 🚩Warn Your Patients. Looking ahead to next week, how many of your implant restorations develop open contacts?

To start this literature review, let’s set the scene during a weird, but exciting time in your dental career.

That right there👆 is what you looked like in March of your fourth year of dental school:

And one thing was hanging over your head keeping you up at night

So the search was on for that “perfect” lesion to pass that, archaic, stressful last exam before you became a real world dentist

And your search, may have resulted in finding a “cavity” like this:

And a premolar?! You are one lucky baby dentist.

But should we have treated those “caries" that were not even barely into dentin?

Probably not…according to some classic lit out of Scotland

So let’s say this dentist was one of the researchers.

And he had a whole gaggle of kids lined up to participate in his study

And those kids were troopers, because Dr. Wallace placed these things👇 in between their molars for 1 week.

Which then allowed him to clinically see if the radiographic caries were actually cavitated

Now here’s a question…

In radiographic lesions like this-

That 👆👆 correct answer might be surprising