Slashdot Mirror
Dental X-Rays Linked To Common Brain Tumor
redletterdave writes "A new study suggests people who had certain kinds of dental X-rays in the past may be at an increased risk for meningioma, the most commonly diagnosed brain tumor in the U.S. Dr. Elizabeth Klaus, the study's lead author and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine, discovered that dental X-rays are the most common source of exposure to ionizing radiation — which has been linked to meningiomas in the past — and that those diagnosed with meningiomas were more than twice as likely as a comparison group to report ever having had bitewing images taken. And regardless of the age when the bitewings were taken, those who had them yearly or more frequently were between 40 percent and 90 percent higher risk at all ages to be diagnosed with a brain tumor."
...the new reason to be afraid of the dentist.
HERE WE GO Line the antivax folks up to half-read this summary.
inhaling air linked to lung and pancreatic tumors (blablabla, poppycock)
A valid reason to avoid the dentist
Time for a review of dental practices?
How many GRAMS of Hg are put into fillings and how much erodes over time?
Will eating acidic foods be linked to releasing Hg and then causing neuro disorders?
Everybody with half a brain has known for decades that radiation, whether it comes from an X-Ray or the current mess that is the Fukushima NPlant, is dangerous, and very much capable of causing cancer. So how on earth did it take THIS LONG for the link between dental X-Rays and brain tumours to be made? I don't want to get all conspiratorial, but it seems to take 3 - 5 decades each time, for something involving radiation actually being linked to cancer. For example, after over 2 decades of rumors and talk about it, we still don't know with any degree of certainty whether cellphones/mobilephones do or don't cause cancer. Given the overall time trend established, we'll probably know for sure, say, 2 - 3 decades from now, when its too late for any of us to stop using a mobile phone.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
I'm a dental student, and I have been taught that - with modern equipment - exposure to radiation from 2 bitewings is about the same as half a day of ski holiday. You really need to take a lot x-rays to expose patients to significant more ionizing radiation than they receive from nature itself.
They give you this big heavy blanket (lined with lead? I dunno) to lay across your body when they do the x-ray. They seem to think it's important to block off the areas they're not actually imaging. So why don't they give you something similar to lay across the top half of your face and head? Obviously it wouldn't stop everything, but you'd think it would help at least a little.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Any word on whether there was a decline in this type of tumor when CMOS x-ray imaging started being used in dentistry? Using CMOS rather than film supposedly requires less exposure time or less x-ray intensity in order to obtain an image comparable to film. I see the article does comment on the decreased intensity of x-ray source now as compared to a decade or so ago, but unless they couldn't readily identify this type of tumor back then, then I would expect to have seen a decline in this type of tumor as well.
Jeeze, taking X-rays of your mouth might give you brain caner, that's a shocker. I wonder if people will also get cancer from the TSA scanners in 20 years? Think the DHS will actually perform a study to see what the long-term health risks are? Doubt it, not if there's money to be ma^H^H^H terrorists to be found. BTW the article summary is based on what people "remember", as in it's not necessairly a scientific study. They asked people who got brain cancer if they ever had dental x-rays. FTA "results are based on people who were likely exposed to higher levels of radiation during dental X-rays than most are today." Nonetheless it does show a corelation but not a scientific link nor causasion.
Mobile phones, antennas and powerlines!
On the one hand, is this something to be worried about? It depends. The incidence rate is around 15 in 10000 in the UK so your lifetime risk goes up to 22 in 10000 if you have them yearly. Don't be fooled by the sensationalist percentages.
On the other, the study is a bit weird in that it doesn't mention correlation with full mouth x-rays, only bitewings. There's additional haziness about the dosages people used to get; the effect is stronger when people had x-rays as children, but we suspect the dosage was higher back then.
"They found a small risk (from) a pair of bitewings, but not a full mouth series, which is multiple bitewings. That inconsistency is impossible to understand to me," said Dr. Alan Lurie, president of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.
So the message is: make sure you really understand why you need an x-ray before you get one, but don't worry too much if it's once every few years. Also, don't irradiate your kids.
Well, at least our friends in the UK won't have to worry about this... :P
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
What are they looking for? I have them every couple of years and the dentist always says that everything's normal. When I did have a cavity, it was found by that iron hook, not an x-ray. So what's the point?
:wq
This is a very flawed study that doesn't account for many things including a) It's based on patients "memories" of when they got x-rays and not actual dates b) Doesn't account for the dramatic reduction in amount of rays needed for the images in the last 20-30 years.
Proof? Check this far better article http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-10/metro/31313701_1_x-rays-tumor-risk-radiation-exposure
it only affects those people constant babbling loudly in quiet public places about their boyfriend's parents, their kid's rash, or their awesome trip to the city, because they have the cell phone constantly stuck to their ear
a mobile app user like myself, i just keep my cell phone at my waist, so my brain is fine. it only means i'm going to be sterile and leave no offspring
it will be quieter world, whatever type of mobile user you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems a little "small" and cherry-picked to prove causation.
For starters, there is currently no evidence that CT scans cause cancer. But a CT of the brain - which is now done routinely on head injury patients entering emergency rooms, exposes you to much, much higher radiation levels than any static x-ray at dental office. I'm talking at least 1000x or more. 10mSv for head CT?? (someone check)
So if dental xray gets you brain tumors, then brain CT caused tumors should light up on the map like lightbulbs in the dark.
You get more radiation from those airport scanners (xrays), than the dental xrays.
- Cavities between the teeth that cannot be found via the probe. If they are caught early, they can be easily treated. If you wait until they CAN be found by the probe, you risk a root canal, or worse.
- The dentist is looking for bone recession indicating gum problems
- Abscesses under the gumline.
So they may not know that much about what the X-ray does to other parts of the body.
I always cover myself with lead before I get an x-ray.
While we take dentistry for granted, an infection driven by a bad tooth used to be a common cause of death. Bad teeth are still a common driver to the ER for many uninsured. Remember Tom Hanks knocking his bad tooth out with an ice skate and a rock on the island? Not going to the dentist for your lifetime has a greater chance of killing you than a rare cancer from a few low dose x-rays. That said, it never hurts to make sure you dentist is using modern low dose digital equipment and not taking any unnecessary images.
And of course the most important question of them all: do Anonymous Cowards know the difference between amalgamated metals and organometallic compounds?
Only second to the question of how hard can it be to find this stuff?
Even if all the mercury leaks out of a filling over the course of a few days it won't harm you. It's not good for you, but you'll be fine.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm not trying to marginalize your point, but at the same time? It seems to me that dentistry is one of the areas of medicine with the least amount of oversight or "checks and balances" to ensure patients are getting what they pay for.
For example, I went to a dentist as a teenager to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted. The oral surgeon recommended that I have "all 4 wisdom teeth pulled at the same time, since there was a good chance the others weren't all going to come in properly anyway - and it would be less painful if I only went through one extraction". I went with his recommendation, only to find that a couple years later, I had cavities in the back of a couple of my teeth, where they faced those wisdom teeth. Apparently, their enamel was damaged in the tooth extraction process, causing them to get cavities. So then I had those filled, but I remembered thinking the whole process was a bit questionable at the time, because he had a young dental assistant working with him, who he asked to mix up the amalgam filling material for him. I remember him looking at it and questioning her about whether she mixed something up enough because it didn't look quite right, stirring it around a bit in the container she was holding, and ultimately going ahead and using it on my teeth. Well, fast forward a couple more years, and I start having a bad toothache. I go to a dentist (totally different place!) and I'm informed that tooth has a big hole in the back of it (where the filling material had obviously fallen out) and the tooth isn't even salvageable anymore!
I look at all of this and have to wonder if I would have been better off if I had only opted to have the bare minimum work done in the beginning? Seems like all these dentists did was create more problems for other dentists to correct, at my expense!
And my daughter is further making me question some of these dentists.... When she was 8 years old, the pediatric dentist commented that "he saw something on the x-rays that concerned him" and "she might need some dental work, but we'll see". The next time she came in for a checkup, he wanted to schedule an expensive dental surgery procedure for her because he claimed a tooth wasn't going to come in right, etc. etc. Well, I didn't have the money so I kept putting it off.... I did send her to the next scheduled checkup though, where they declared "She doesn't need that surgery after all!" (Really?! WTF?!)
Oh, and then there's my younger brother, who had all kinds of dental problems after his dentist screwed up a procedure -- but of course, denies any of it was his doing.
X-Rays are overused by dentists these days - more of a revenue stream than for diagnosis.
For example, I had a filling fall out - I even had the gum that pulled it. Nope. Gotta have an x-ray. Dentist looks at it and exclaims, "Yep, the filling fell out!"
No shit. You need a DMD or DDS to known that?
Over the years, I've had a shit load of dental problems - like necrotic teeth. Not a single one was ever predicted or found with an x-ray. None. And yet, they insist to the point of refusing to do business with you if you refuse.
Many years ago, I had a dentist that very rarely took x-rays. If a filling fell out, he looked with a mirror. I once had horrible pain. He first ordered x-rays and after looking, he canceled. It was a horrible gum infection due to my wisdom teeth breaking though.
On some procedures the insurance company will demand to see the x-ray. But the keyword is "some".
It's all about revenue.
Big news ! People who take care of their health are more likely to be diagnosed.
Firstly, where did they find their sample of people who have never had bitewings taken? If you've EVER received a dental exam, the dentist almost certainly took a set of bitewings, and probably a panorex.
If you've actually never had bitewings takne, you probably aren't receiving dental care at all. And if you aren't receiving dental care, it's a safe bet that you are more likely (though not certain) to not be receiving quality medical either. Meaning you could have a menengioma and die without it ever being diagnosed.
And please, please, note that even the study stated these results were based on far older radiation levels. Today's x-rays don't need nearly as much.
Given that dental abscesses can be fatal if untreated, (in addition to poor dental health being linked to stuff far more common and deadly than brain tumors), don't refuse dental x-rays based on this report.
I've been having problems with frequent headaches recently and I was worried that I might have a brain tumor or something. I've been to a neurologist who had me get an MRI to eliminate that possibility (which BTW it did, phew!). I've had enough dental xrays over the years, but rarely a full mouth set. Most of the time the dentist would only take views of any teeth that looked problematic visually, or if I was complaining of pain and nothing was visual in that area. I also had localized views taken before root canal work, and before a possible tooth implant (I didn't get the implant because the Xray reviled that I had insufficient bone density in my jaw to support it. I got a bridge instead). So dental xrays are useful as a diagnostic tool (especially before possible surgery), and a good dentist will do as much as possible visually before taking one. I still don't know what is causing my headaches, but the problem may be dental related ... seems I grind my teeth in my sleep and I now have a bite guard I wear and night.
You see the burnt out calcified husks of meningiomas in about 5% of all CAT scans of the brain, which are done pretty often. Something like 0.05% of them are malignant, and maybe another 0.5% grow in areas where they push on the brain to cause seizures.
It's the least interesting tumor you can have, almost guaranteed not to kill you.
So, you're proposing we only use 'old technology'.
That means Film X-rays vs digital ones that reduce radiation exposure 50-90%
Rather than using digital cell phones transmitting 1/4 watt, we'd be using analog ones that transmitted at 4 watts.
Rather than using wifi, we'd just stick with old portable phones - 2.4Ghz, right next to your head, at like 10X the output.
The list goes on. As mentioned in other threads here, there's a big difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Heck, you list Asbestos as an example - thing is, we knew the stuff was dangerous back before WWII, it's just that in the war rush we disregarded it in favor of getting more ships out.
In the end, you go back 'a few generations', you'll see more pollution, radiation, and other hazards at far lower utility level. We've done a lot in identifying causes of damage rather than just finding correlations between use of certain types of equipment and the condition being tracked.
I don't read AC A human right
Here is the study itself. Ignore the media, they're obviously idiots.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26625/abstract
There are too many variables left untouched. The only reason this is getting attention is because it's from an Ivy.
Are these digital radiographs (formal term for "x-ray")? Are these older film radiographs? What other sources of radiation are these people exposed to? What were their settings for each capture? Is it confirmed and documented? Are they travelers?
Obviously exposure to ionizing radiation is bad. No one is arguing that. However, in terms of damage, you just threw a pebble at a canoe in the water.
A radiograph from a general dentist, be it bite-wing or periapical is about 1/2 the daily background radiation exposure per shot.
Panorex (the thing you bite down and another thing goes around your head... most common when you see an oral surgeon to get third molars removed or an ortho / perio / prostho) is obviously more radiation exposure. While it is a fairly centralized beam, there still is scatter as it moves around your head.
Then if you see an orthodontist, you'll probably get something called a lateral cephalogram which is even more with a larger exposure target (includes brain).
In the dental community, there is a LOT of skepticism and unanswered questions.
Oh since this is /. here is a obligatory XKCD - http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Given the chart I linked and it's relative accuracy, these people would probably blame a Sinal CT on Kennedy getting shot.
Well gosh, I think there was about zero Hg in the many fillings I've been getting the past few months. They're ceramics (with color matching done before mixing the stuff up) that cure with a light "gun" that probably emits UV for the curing process. The difference shows up on an X-ray, but otherwise it's not visible.
There's no point in using metallic fillings unless you really want to show off your bling every time you smile. (Plus, the dentist has to keep track of some really expensive metals that can potentially be stolen.)
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Here we go again, the anti-society nuts are out. Just go live back in caves already and let those of us willing to take chances alone. People blame everything on modern this and that, last I looked people on average used to only live to 50.
I have a buddy with this huge gap right in the middle of his upper front teeth. Other than that he has perfect teeth. Years ago he went in to get a small gap closed and the idiot dentist actually spread the gap wider instead. I don't know how he couldn't tell it was going the wrong way while it was happening. After it was done apparently all the rest of his teeth were scooted by it and closing it now is not a simple procedure so he just left it. HUGE GAP for no reason.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Everyone's teeth are different.
Dentistry sometimes seems more of an art then a science. My wife had her teeth filed to remove the bumps on them. She ended up with a cold sensitivity and those bumps would have most likely disappeared on their own with wear eventually. Her dentist also removed a tooth on one side, making her smile crooked in her mouth.
For myself I waited too long to have my wisdom teeth removed and the crowding made my teeth more crooked then normal.
For my daughter she was told that she would need braces before she even had her adult teeth grow in.
Hate to burst a bubble but pretty much all 'medical' practitioners from acupuncturists to neurosurgeons have limited oversight and do things that, in retrospect, seem batshit insane.
Health care can be a big gamble, some things work, a lot don't. In general, I think we're improving all of the time (Big Pharma being a notable exception) but it's not easy, inexpensive or guaranteed.
McCoy: [McCoy, masked and in surgical garb, passes an elderly woman groaning on a gurney in the hallway] What's the matter with you?
Elderly patient: [weakly] Kidney
[pause]
Elderly patient: dialysis.
McCoy: [geniunely surprised] Dialysis?
[musing to himself]
McCoy: What is this, the Dark Ages?
[He turns back to the patient and hands her a large white pill]
McCoy: Here,
[pause]
McCoy: you swallow that, and if you have any more problems, just call me!
[He pats her cheek and leaves]
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yep. No more mercury poisoning. Now we'll get UV radiation induced skin cancers inside our mouths.
Science marches on!
(Only half kidding.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Now replace dentist with an other profession, for example programmer, and the job with programming, and presto, you got a very recognizable story. In short: in every profession the majority just fucks up very often.
Perl Programmer for hire
After looking at the actual paper the only conclusion you can reasonably draw from the study, is that you can't draw any conclusion!
The study looks at 1433 people with the brain cancer, and 1350 without. They found that 1127 of those people with cancer had had a bitwig x-ray which amounts to 95.8%. For this type of measurement one standard deviation is roughly the square root of the number of positive results. In this case one standard deviation is roughly 34 people which amounts to 2.3%. In order to say anything definitively the results between the people with and without cancer should vary by many (3+) standard deviations. But they do not!
Out of the control group 1043 people or 92.2% had have bitwig x-rays (NOTE the different sample sizes). The differences between the two results is 3.6% or 1.6 standard deviations.
The results are even worse when you look at the number of full mouth x-rays. They found that 75.5% of the people with cancer and 75% without had had full mouth x-rays with a standard deviation of ~2%. Full mouth x-rays introduce a higher does than bitwigs! If you want to argue that dental x-rays cause cancer, then you should see that the higher the does the higher the rate of cancer. But their results suggest that there is no difference for the people with the higher does!!!!
This result combined with the poor statistics and the conclusion of the authors of the paper ("Our results suggest that dental x-rays ... may be associated with an increased risk of intracranial meningioma" [1]) and you get a text book example of Crap science!
Here is a link to the journal article
1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26625/abstract
In places like
the Free Enterprise Radon Mine.
Personally, I wouldn't bother, but then I'm just some propeller head geek who looks at books all the time.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Sorry, but my main objection to both the claim and counter-claim is that this is journalism, not science. Can't someone provide links to PLoS One papers? Arxiv? Cancer research group websites? I'd ask my uncle, who was a statistician specializing in cancer research, but he's retired and won't be on the cutting edge any more. This needs to be answered by researchers who have that up-to-the-microsecond knowledge.
However, I'd also point out that the "dramatic reduction" you speak of is questionable. I've seen no reliable figures showing it is dramatically better (dentist offices don't have on-site engineers, won't maintain equipment any more than they have to and are unlikely to have staff highly trained in the use of systems - more likely they know how to press a button but don't know how to adjust settings according to any manual that may exist).
Further, 20-30 years ago, fewer people would have had "routine" X-Rays than today, so even if the per-session dosage is actually lower, the net dose over the year might actually be greater. Instantaneous dose isn't important.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Now I know why the dentist next door goes through so many dental hygienists...
Check the Jethro Tull page re: John Glascock. They lost a bass player due to the infection spreading from a bad tooth...
Melanoma isn't linear to the total amount of exposure http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sunburn/facts-about-sunburn-and-skin-cancer. "One blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence more than doubles a person's chances of developing melanoma later in life."
Some newer studies also point towards basal cell carcinoma being a result of brief, intense exposure rather than slow exposure accumulated over many years.
So it isn't true that "only total dose matters" for melanoma, possibly not for basal cell carcinoma ... when we're still learning so much about cancer how can you assess public health risks on what we know today?
The only time dental mercury was a problem is when people have it procedural removed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
With dentists, just like doctors, they're not all equal. Some are downright incompetent. Plus, just like with surgeons, dentistry is a very hands-on profession, making it a real art. Not everyone is gifted with great dexterity and the ability to do extremely fine work. If the dentist you're seeing is saying things that bother you, you should go visit a different dentist for a second opinion.
Yep, I've gotten quite a few fillings in the last 10 years, and all of them have been resin type fillings; my dentist doesn't even use the amalgam stuff any more as far as I know.
Acupuncture? Seriously? In a discussion about the medical field? How in the world do these "acupuncturists" continue to peddle their bullshit as if it was some actual therapy? I'm not trying to give you shit, specifically, but putting acupuncture in the same breathe as neurosurgery is quite a stretch.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
1. Confidence intervals at 95% means that the study BARELY reached statistical significance.
2. Odds ratios 1.5 -> 2 do not really mean that much in the real world
3. Study design relied heavily on patient memory. recall bias.
4. Despite these issues, the difference in prevalence is 15 vs 22 out of 10,000.
I presume slashdot ate your unicode, as *grams* of Hg per litre wouldn't be very healthy.
What was the unit supposed to be? Micrograms?
Cute - thanks. Yeah, definately g (alt-230)g [micrograms]. And I'm not sure why it goes through as something other than extended ascii. Perhaps that's slashdot's text entry system, or maybe it's higher up in Firefox...