Looking for cavitations in entire archive - Found 12 matches in 6 files
Showing results 1 - 6
| Cavitational Osteopathosis, Bouquot, NICO, and "Biological Dentistry", 4/4/2010 |
| A small minority of dentists, who commonly refer to themselves as "biologic dentists,' claim that most facial pains and even pains and diseases located far from the mouth are caused by cavities (cavitations) within the jaw bones. This concept was first proposed in 1976 and called "cavitational osteopathosis" ("CO"). Proponents of this concept alleged that many patients had infected cavities within their jaws and that these cavities were not treatable with antibiotics or detectable on x-rays. Dentists are able to diagnose abscesses, cysts, and bone infections with x-rays and treat many of them with antibiotic therapy. Because the theory of CO contradicted so much of what was known about bone infections, it was not widely accepted. In addition, the treatment advocated for CO was highly invasive and consisted of drilling into the supposed “cavitations,” scraping the bone and rinsing the wound with antibiotics. Some dentists even rinsed the cavity with colloidal silver and administered intravenous vitamin C. The scientific evidence for both the diagnosis and treatment of CO was extremely weak. Attorney David Wilzig of Los Angeles, who has a special interest in dental malpractice cases, has filed suits on behalf of at least eleven victims of NICO-related misconduct. The suits indicate that the dentist(s) diagnosed nonexistent “cavitations,” removed healthy jaw tissues alleged to contain them, and sent specimens to Bouquot who confirmed the alleged NICO diagnosis. Some of the plaintiffs also had teeth and/or amalgam fillings removed unnecessarily, and some required extensive medical and surgical treatment to repair jaw damage and disfigurement caused by the NICO surgery. Many of the cases involved activities by the dentists that constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine (rather than dentistry). These included diagnosis via autonomic response testing (ART, a quacky muscle-test procedure); phony diagnosis of mercury poisoning; and neural therapy injections into breasts, stomach, shoulders, and/or other body parts. Some of the suits included Bouquot as a defendant. Nine of the victims settled with payment of undisclosed amounts. At least ten dentists in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington who treated "cavitations" have been disciplined by their state licensing boards for insurance fraud or other dental act violations, most of which were related to this alleged diagnosis. Osteomyelitis near tooth sockets is not common. Deceptive dentists typically list routine (and often unnecessary) extractions as "surgical extractions" (thus charging more) and then scrape out bone from the socket and tooth roots, claiming that an "infection" or osteomyelitis exists. NICO advocates may also remove every tooth with a root canal treatment, regardless of success or failure of the treatment. They claim that root canal treated teeth are "toxic" and cause "cavitations," without any valid biological basis or clinical data to support these assertions. Multiple extractions on the same day in the same quadrant, coupled with diagnoses of cavitations, osteomyelitis, or other bony pathology
|
| Stay Away from Holistic and "biological" Dentists, 30/5/2010 |
| Huggins is among a small number of dentists who maintain that facial pain, heart disease, arthritis, and various other health problems are caused by "cavitations," within the jaw bones, that are not detectable on x-ray examination or treatable with antibiotics. Advocates now call this condition "neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO" and claim they can cure the patient by locating and scraping out the affected tissues. states that, "Cavitations are hard to find. They require lots of skill, years of experience, and most of all, a vivid imagination to spot them on an X-ray film." Vivid imagination may well be the basic requirement of holistic and biological dentistry.
|
| The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark, 5/6/2010 |
| Several teeth should be removed and "cavitations" in her lower jaw should be scraped out.
|
| Be Wary of "Fad" Diagnoses, 15/3/2009 |
| Some dentists maintain that facial pain, heart disease, arthritis, and various other health problems are caused by infected "cavitations," within the jaw bones, that are not detectable on x-ray examination or treatable with antibiotics. Calling this condition "cavitational osteopathosis" or "neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO)," advocates claim they can cure the patient by locating and scraping out the affected tissues. They may also remove all root-canal–treated teeth and most of the vital teeth close to the area where they say an infection exists. There is no scientific evidence to support this assertion or the diagnostic and treatment methods based on it. Proponents of this dubious theory have formed the American Academy of Biological Dentistry.
|
| Testimony of Dr. Robert Baratz, 15/4/2002 |
| It is problematic when practitioners advance their personal ideas, often disguised as legitimate treatments, upon unsuspecting patients for both real and fanciful illnesses. Beside the unsubstantiated claims and methods promulgated by Hulda Clark, we regularly hear about inappropriate use of hyperbaric oxygen, chelation therapy, and conventional drugs, used for unapproved purposes, for allegedly "treating" "poisonings", arteriosclerosis, and cancer. We also hear about alleged diagnoses made by a litany of pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo including: applied kinesiology, hair analysis, whole blood analysis, live cell analysis, and other such nonsense. These alleged illnesses are "caused" by environmental "toxins", dental "cavitations", alleged mercury and heavy metal toxicity, NICO, and other made-up conditions. Commonly we also hear of unapproved electrical devices used in both the "diagnosis" and "treatment" of these conditions.
|
| Huggins Case Decision, 23/12/1999 |
| 39. When asked to state the scientific basis for his theories on mercury toxicity from amalgams, root canal extractions, and cavitations, Respondent was very vague. While he was able to identify a handful of studies on which he relied, he generally referred to thousands of publications in his library which supported his position, although he had not supplied them to the Board in response to their requests and could not identify them. He also sought to portray questions seeking to identify these studies as unreasonable by, for example, indicating that his goal is to treat patients and not to "rattle off" citations in the literature. In addition, he indicated his philosophy that the absence of proof in not the proof of absence.
|