TAKING THE PAIN OUT OF DENTISTRY

Northern Advocate, 10 March 1936, Page 5

TAKING THE PAIN OUT OF DENTISTRY

AMERICAN DISCOVERY PROFESSIONAL CAUTION i I CONCERNING REPORTS i I j Interest in reports of the successful I use in Sydney by Dr. W. Stewart Ziele 1 of the painless dentistry invention of i Dr. Leroy Hartman, Professor of i Dentistry at the Columbia University I School of Dental and Oral Surgery, was expressed by Wellington dentists ! who were interviewed by “The , Do- | minion.” They stated, however, that so far as they knew there had been 'no use of the new agent in New Zealand and they expressed doubt as to whether there would be any experiments with it until more precise technical information had been secured j from the United States.

The new “desensitising” agent, its advocates claim, will make the dentist’s drill a painless instrument — something millions have been hoping for for years. The patent rights to the substance are held by the university, to prevent possible exploitation by commercial interests, and it is stated that the product will be available commercially in the near future. Dr. Ziele, who was described by one Wellington dentist yesterday as being an experienced and capable practitioner, was reported from Sydney to have secured particulars of the formula from the United States and tried it with marked success in Australia.

“It is rather too much to hope that a magic wand which will remove pain from dentistry has been waved,” a dentist stated. “The discovery of this new agent is interesting, but it has not yet been proved sufficiently for general adoption, and dentists will probably be rather chary of adopting it until they know more about it.”

Another dentist said that a discovery which would end the association of pain with the drill would be as welcome to the profession as to the public, but there, had been several similar inventions before and nearly all had some disadvantages combined with its advantages, such as the killing of teeth to which it was applied. Dentists would probably wait for more scientific information before attempting to use the new product. The Australian commendation of the new treatment was most interesting, one man said, because little or no definite official information had been received from the United States. Information of this kind was being awaited by dentists who were interested in the possibilities but, on their past experience, were rather scptical until reliable proof was produced. The journal of the American Dental Association recently reviewed the reported discovery, but discussed more the method by which the announcement had been made than the merits of the product, taking the view that the dental profession should have been acquainted with the discovery before the announcement was, made in the newspapers. The journal stated: “It is inconceivable how such an article should ever have been released as coming from a responsible source. Great inventions or discoveries in medicine or dentistry are never launched through agencies of t?iis character. The whole circumstance is so out of keeping with the wellestablished order of procedure in the introduction of any new remedy that we can only wonder whether there is anything new in it or indeed it is a remedy at all. The situation smacks too much of the patent medicine man’s ordinary stock-in-trade to entitle the product to any consideration, and the pity is that it should have emanated from a source so prominent. If it is true that a great discovery has been made there were available for its introduction the proper professional channels.”

American newspaper reports say the desensitiser has no after effects, becomes effective in 60 to 90 seconds after application, and remains effective for 20 to 60 minutes.