Breaking Through The Barriers Major Manufacturers Devise To Minimize Competitive Information

First of all, what are the barriers? Exclusive access to the student body. Think about it. The corporations in cooperation with the school administrators not only determine what instrumentation system to use, but then create strict rules to prevent the students on school grounds from hearing about any other system involving different principles. One can make a case that from a practical point of view only one system can be taught. It makes sense. What is indefensible are policies that prohibit a student body from even hearing about alternative systems. Unlike limitations employing one system that can be rationalized, excluding the student body from hearing about alternative methods is an example of raw power in an academic setting that claims critical thinking to be one of the central goals of the education process. These types of restrictions are better described as aligned with indoctrination rather than the free flow of ideas that once energized our educational system. Wherever market interests penetrate the educational process, one can expect increasing degrees of indoctrination and dispersal of information conforming to the goals of the corporate sponsors.

Breaking through this barrier is accomplished by writing about the process, the damage done to the educational system, the degradation of the student body more accurately described as the cultivation of consumers. The deemphasis and abandonment of democratic values and the imposition of an authoritarian structure that demands passive obedience of the students. In attempting to break through this barrier, one must take note of the often enthusiastic cooperation the faculty receives by being willing participants. It is quite appealing to be the recipient of corporate largesse. All one has to do is ignore the damage done to an unfettered education that offers no more rewards than that of an expanded mind.

The appeal to higher goals is attractive to anyone who derives self-respect from at least the desire to be open-minded. This goal is worthwhile and if written and talked about enough in social circles, will attract people who want to learn more. I may be redundant in my interpretation of the mechanical principles of instrumentation I wish to convey. But, those are simply the specifics. The more general and valuable point is the expansions of an environment that encourages a broad expanse of debate, to cover issues that were previously ignored or studiously avoided.

Understanding the inconvenience to their marketing efforts, the major manufacturers use surrogates as an indirect method to attack both the message and the messenger. What they may or may not understand, but cannot avoid is the fact that unsubstantiated degradation of an individual strengthens the stance of that individual. To cause harm to that individual, the arguments degrading him must make sense to those who are reading these posts. These are the same people who are the recipients of information they previously were not exposed to making them less inclined to follow the emotional attempt to reject what has been written. For the critic (surrogate) to be successful, he must present superior data and performance, an impossible task considering the inherent contradictions of rotary NiTi instrumentation>

Why impossible? Impossible because when I bring up rotary’s shortcomings in staying intact and inadequate three-dimensional debridement there is no thoughtful response, either ignoring the problems altogether or by saying they are rare and insignificant, conclusions that are not validated by any of the dentists I have taught over the years. Unsubstantiated denial of problems is actually data that confirms the existence of the problems. Under all conditions, we need well thought out answers that should at a minimum stand up as examples of common sense.

Addressing actual shortcomings include the following:

Don’t tell dentists that have experienced instrument separations that it is a rare event. Rather, show them how to definitively eliminate the problem.

Don’t tell dentists that rotary cleanses oval canals adequately when the recommended precaution is to use them in a centered fashion.

Don’t insist that rotary NiTi does not produce dentinal micro-cracks when the instruments rotating within the canal walls are subject to breakage.

Don’t say rotary NiTi produces far less apical extrusion than 30o oscillations when examples of rotary instrumentation clearly do not support that conclusion.

The barriers are being broken most effectively because the alternative story of 30o oscillating stainless steel relieved reamers has been shown to overcome all the shortcomings of rotary NiTi without adding new problems. Truth is a tough thing to kill. You can delay its arrival and distribution, but it eventually take hold, something unique to truths.

Regards, Barry