The simplest definition of a dentist is a person who cares for people’s teeth.
There are two types …
1) A dental adviser teaches you how to prevent tooth decay and gum disease.
2) A dental practitioner cuts the crap out of your teeth and gums after the damage has been done.
Which one of these dentists is your highest choice to visit?
The dental practitioner is the person who treats the conditions of the teeth and gums, “especially the repair and extraction of teeth and the insertion of artificial ones.”
It’s not that a dental practitioner doesn’t come in handy once in a while, but why do they know so little about what creates dental disease in the first place?
They earn a heck of a lot more money when you end up in their offices after the fact than if they gave you good enough advice to keep you out of their offices in the first place.
Henry Pickerill (1879-1956) wrote …
“Suppose a similar condition affected the finger-nails — suppose that 90 per cent of the community went about with decayed or suppurating finger-nails — the idea would long ago have been so revolting that extensive measures would have been adopted for the suppression of such a disease; yet the total systemic disorder and the annual loss of life would have been far less than it is from dental disease.”
According to the same source …
“The present system of inspection and advice is good and necessary, and is a step in the right direction; but by itself it is futile, and almost useless to stem the tide of this national disease. The proposed system of treatment by means of fillings and extractions on the most expensive and costly scale can hardly be much better; it is to be regarded as a policy of expediency rather than of principle. No universal method of treating disease can be recognized as being upon right lines; no enormous expenditure of public money for the treatment of disease can be justified unless that treatment strikes at the cause of the trouble, and gives some reasonable hope that the incidence of the disease will be materially lessened. If the simile may be pardoned, such schemes are as if an army of small boys were pelting a glass house with stones, and the owners, instead of attacking and dispersing the cause of the trouble, employed an equally large army of workmen to be constantly repairing the damage as it went on. There would be two inevitable results: the vigour and number of the attackers would increase daily, and the work of the workmen would deteriorate.”