As the only member of the California state legislature who is a dentist, and as a practicing oral and maxillofacial surgeon, it is with sadness and anger that I feel compelled to write my first letter to the editor of The Journal of the American Dental Association.
As a member of the ADA for nearly 30 years, I have enjoyed and appreciated The Journal for its informative and rational discussion of issues facing the dental profession. I have trusted The Journal for three decades to "show me the science."
However, the October JADA cover story, "The Dental Unit Waterline Controversy: Defusing the Myths, Defining the Solutions" by Dr. Shannon Mills, breaks that trust in its conclusions and in the fact that the editor would choose such a prominent place for an article that doesn’t meet the standards of scientific scrutiny.
A careful reading of the article reveals at least 10 instances where the author states that there are no clinical cases or documented pathology to link water from dental units to any health risk. Yet he concludes that "water that is unfit to drink as defined by nationally recognized standards is unsuitable for therapeutic use in dentistry." Sounds logical, but where is the science?
While 66 cited references spanning nearly 40 years show that "DUWL cleanliness is not a public health crisis," he concludes that "continued inaction on the part of the dental profession can serve only to undermine public confidence in our commitment to quality dental care."
As a legislator, I see every day the results of undocumented allegations and guilt by association based on similar "scientific conclusions" (note the antiamalgamists and the antifluoridationists), and predict that the conclusions from this article will be cited as evidence from a scientific journal that "something needs to be done" (that is, more rules and regulation). And because the conclusions are not supported by the data, I predict that this article will not get the issue resolved.
What the conclusions of this article will get, however, is the attention of the malpractice lawyers, the regulators and the uninformed, public-sentiment-driven people (legislators) who are quick to use public hysteria as the basis for advancing political agendas.
As a doctor, I continually admonish my legislative colleagues to base their proposals on science. This article’s conclusions have handcuffed me and other legislative and dental leaders in our fight to base society’s rules and regulations on conclusions based on scientific data, not "logic."
