depths. However, statistical significance does not always relate to clinical significance. A difference of 0.33 mm is not measurable in clinical practice, nor is it meaningful. Even with well-designed clinical trials, the conclusions do not always accurately reflect the results. In this trial, for example, a reduction of bleeding upon probing with photodynamic disinfective therapy (PDT) was reported, even though no statistical analyses were done. There may be a number of reasons for this. However, a lack of analysis means any conclusions drawn from frequency data alone are not valid. I am always looking for ways to better manage my patients, and that includes techniques and materials that pose fewer risks, have fewer side effects, are less expensive and take less time while being equally or more effective than how I currently practise. With that in mind, I look forward to further evidence that PDT in the treatment of periodontitis does all that it claims to do. References 1. Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006; 295(11):1281–7. 2. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. 3. Loebel N, Anderson R, Hammond D, Leone S, Leone V. AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando. Non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontitis using photoactivated disinfection. J Dent Res 2006; 85(Spec Iss A):1150. Unique Software Problem? Irecently installed a software update for my office computer network and it is proving to be the absolute worst upgrade yet in over 15 years with the same dental software company. The new version seems to be a fix for bugs caused by a previous software update — no great new features, no time- or cost-saving innovations, merely fixing the messy lock-ups and screen freezes that occur at the least convenient moments. ––– Letters ––– Despite upgrading the bulk of my office computer hardware last year, it appears that I now need to change another client computer. In fact, this particular part of my network was working fine before the upgrade. Coincidence? I think not. When I sought assistance, the software vendor blamed the hardware. According to the rather terse and rude technical support, no other installation of this software, numbering in the several thousands, has had similar problems. On top of that, the software provider tried to charge me for this telephone diagnosis. I understand the complexity of computer software–hardware interaction. However, I cannot accept the result I have obtained as the present configuration hinders the flow of my practice as opposed to facilitating it. Looking at such computer issues from the standpoint of a dental patient creates a new perspective: “Doctor, I can’t chew my food with this expensive new bridge that you just placed.” “The bridge is perfect in every way. It must be a problem with the food that you are eating. If you upgrade your food to the latest models, I am sure that the problem will go away. No other patient has ever had this problem. By the way, please pay on the way out.” Would this patient be happy or accept the results? More importantly, would a dentist accept such a result or treat a patient this way? I see no reason to accept a less than usable product that costs a lot of money, and I will persist until I am happy with the results. I would like to know if anyone else has experienced similar issues with their dental computer software or if I am indeed the only one with these problems. Dr. Brian Waters Toronto, Ontario 288 <strong>JCDA</strong> • www.cda-adc.ca/jcda • May 2006, Vol. 72, No. 4 • Erratum An incorrect dollar figure appeared in the “Practice management FAQs” article on page 123 in the March 2006 <strong>JCDA</strong>. 1 The sentence should read: “If the office increased both production and collections by 10% after implementing a bonus system, the office would have 20% of $50,000 or $10,000 to distribute amongst team members.” <strong>JCDA</strong> regrets the error and has amended the electronic version to reflect the change. Reference 1. Marinovich J. Practice management FAQs. [Business of Dentistry] J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72(2):121–3.
Vitallium® 2000 Plus Alloy We set the standard for chrome cobalt alloys. Then we improved it. Then we improved it again! Vitallium ® 2000 Plus Alloy is the Ultimate Partial Denture Alloy. With a smaller, lighter partial denture framework and a precise, comfortable fit, patients will love Vitallium ® 2000 Plus Alloy! More importantly, dental professionals will, too. Vitallium ® 2000 Plus Alloy offers superior physical and mechanical properties when compared to other chrome cobalt alloys*. The improved physical properties provide extraordinary strength and excellent fracture resistance! *Data on file. Make sure you are getting Vitallium ® when you ask for it, please contact your local Dentsply Territory Manager for a certified Lab near you - 1-800-263-1437.
Change language