CHILDREN’S TEETH

Evening Star, Issue 19772, 24 January 1928, Page 5

CHILDREN’S TEETH

HEW ZEALAND’S SYSTEM OF TREATMENT CRITICISED BY DR PIGKERILL In u contribution recently published in the London ‘ Spectator,’ Dr H. G. Pickerill, formerly Dean of the Dental Faculty at Otago University, 'rakes a- vigorous attack on the system whereby children’s teeth in New Zealand are treated by dental nurses. This criticism has been replied to by the Director of Dental Hygiene, Colonel T. A. Hunter, who has forwarded a letter to the 1 Spectator,’ pointing out that some years ago Dr Pickerill was one who persistently advocated tho provision of free dental treatment for school children by the State, and that the system was one that had won tho admiration of many • members of the medical and dental professions. Tho letter written by Dr Pickerill, which appears in the ‘Spectator’ of September 10 under tho heading ot ‘Dental Hygiene,’ is as follows: —In your issue of May 21 there appeared a contribution by “ Crusader,” under the above heading. The title was surely a misnomer, since your contributor said little or nothing about the hygiene of teeth. It was apparently a not-very-enthusiastic attempt to advocate treatment of childrens’ teeth by unquahned practitioners. Unfortunately, here in New Zealand, we have such a system inaugurated by the Government, xoung women of no particular educational standard are “ intensively ” trained for two years in a so-called school, and then are given State posit ions as denta l nurses,” when they do not carry out the hygiene of tho teeth as understood jnd carried out in America, but arc authorised to operate in exactly the wine manner as a qualified dentist upon both the permanent and milk teeth ot children attending primary schools. They aro permitted and have to decide which teeth are to be extracted and which filled, and they administer local anesthetics for tho most part entirely’ without supervision. This is not dental hygiene; it is cheap dentistry. It is obviously fundamentally wrong, and is Imviim a most unfortunate effect upon the morale of New Zealand children and parents. , , In the first place, it is one more responsibility of which the State is relieving the parent. The parents arc saving there is no need to worry about 1 noth'or their hygiene: the State Mill fill up the holes. Secondly, to hope to check the incidence of dental canes by the mechanical means of filling boles as fast as they appear is as futile as it is thoughtless'' and unscientific. It Is not tho duty of the Slate to interfere in treatment; it is the pie-bim-nent duty of Huh State to initiate ana cnrrv out prevention. Dental caries can "bo prevents, but it means care, thought, and sacrifice, and these things beimT highly unpopular, no politicians will luyvd iun'tliu\£ to do with thorn, much less take active measures to cn-foi-.-o them. On the other band, iroo (albeit unqualified) dentistry is highly popular, and finds ready support. Snnicicnt is known of the cause and prevention of decay of the tooth to eliminate at least 70 to 80_ per cent, of its incidence if the principles were thor- , nobly taught and enforced. My own iuves Ligations and those of others have shown 'that lhcro_ are four factors at work, the attacking forces—diet and organisms, and the delcnding forces—the resistance of the surface of the teeth and the quality and quantity of tav fluid in which they arc bathed by Naim (saliva). ■ • • COLONEL HUNTER'S REPLY. In his leplv. Colonel T. A. Hunter stut' ; that the present system has been in operation in New Zealand for six year.- but for many years previous to that the New Zealand Dental Association had persistently urged the Govern)! 1 en* to take up the, question of free (h-T-ta! treatment for school children, and in this agitation Dr Pickerill took an active part. Now he says in the letter referred to: “ It is not tho duty of the State to interfere in treatment.” When did he alter his views on this* subject ? Colonel Hunter goes on to say that when tim scheme was originally suggested it was naturally enough viewed w iuli a certain amount of misgiving by some of the profession. Dr Pickerill took advantage of this, and organised strong and persistent opposition in tho public Press and in other ways. In order to ascertain the real views of the profession a full meeting of the executive council of the New Zealand Dental Association was convened._ Every branch throughout the dominion was represented, and Dr Pickerill, although not a member, was present. The proposal to institute a corps of dental nurses was fully discussed, and by an overwhelming majority the proposal was endorsed, and it was agreed to support the Government in bringing the scheme into operation.

“Dr Pickerill’s opposition then ceased.” adds Colonel Hunter. “ and he went so far as to come to me and offer his assistance. I still have in my possession a letter from him offering suggestions in connection with the proposed syllabus of training for dental nurses. His scruples against what he now chooses to call ‘ unqualified practitioners ’ had disappeared. Later, however. Dr Pickerill again appeared as a bitter opponent of the scheme.” Colonel Hunter stated that the suggestion that they hoped to check the incidence of dental caries by the mechanical means of filling holes as fast as they appeared was an insult to their intelligence The statement that young women of no particular educational standard were admitted for training as dental nurses was not a fact. A high standard of education was demanded. The opinion of those members of the profession who were best fitted to judge and who had taken the trouble to investigate thoroughly (which, by the way, Dr Pickerill had never clone) was that the dental nurses were even better fitted for treating young children than the average freshly qualified student from a dental school.

“Our training school and our clinics throughout the dominion,” says the colonel, “arc open to the fierce light of criticism for the profession and the laity. The New Zealand Dental Association has on more than one occasion pronounced itself in favor of the scheme. Many members of both the medical and dental profession have visited us, and all have expressed themselves in admiration of the system. The Chief Dental Officer of the Education Department of Victoria was sent specially to investigate the New Zealand system, and after going thoroughly into the matter strongly urged the Victorian Government to institute a similar service.”