Flouridation Issue: Head Of Preventive Dentistry, University Of Toronto Clarifies
Flouridation Issue: Head Of Preventive Dentistry, University Of Toronto Clarifies
The American Dental Association article from which you (containing previous article about fluoridation) got your information actually has an error (compare Fig. 2 and Table 2). Those figures you quote ("Dentists' Nominal Net Income for 2000 was $533,000 up from $141,000 in 1982") are actually gross billings.
The net income (before income tax) in 1982 was $53,530 and in 2000 it was, on average, $183,050. Dentists are small business owners, employing anywhere from two to a dozen or more people. During this economic crisis many people are happy to have jobs, when one in every 10 Americans is out of work. In the US, depending on the size, small business owners have the potential to earn much more than dentists....see http://online.wsj.com/article/...&sjrss=wsj
Dentistry is much more cosmetically oriented these days (and more expensive), because patients now demand straight, white teeth, and want implants instead of partial dentures. Maybe dental fluorosis really is one of the reasons that dentists are earning more income from cosmetic work but dentists' salaries have really only kept up with the consumer price index and that was the point of that JADA article.
written by steveW , November 15, 2009
written by He-Man , November 16, 2009
written by R Dhuy , November 20, 2009
Truth be known, flouridation was a marketing ploy by dentistry to raise the public's perception of dentists who at the time were ranked by the public to be lower on the scale of integrity than used car salesmen. How noble of them to propose something that would eliminate or reduce the need for their services.
Add flouride to the unwarranted x-rays and the poisonous mercury and the cavitations in bone caused by root canal therapies.
The dentistry profession makes the tobacco companies look like angels.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Hot Topics of the Day
-
Some Other Views On LegCo Deliberations One thing I always notice during a LegCo meeting is that there is always an answer...
-
Give A Chance To Neighbourhood Nasi Katok Our government always encourages us to earn extra income by doing business and...
-
Server Blues I have been a customer of b.mobile ZOOM since September 2008.
-
Retirement Age I read with much interest your newspaper's excellent coverage of the proceedings...
-
More U-Turns Needed To Reduce Congestion If you drive from Bukit Paha Paha KM 10 Jalan Gadong towards the direction of...
-
Washing Smells Of Burnt Plastic I am very happy that something is done against open burning but I am unhappy...
-
Confusion Over Zakat Muallaf I am a Muslim convert as of March 2006 also known as Muaallaf.








Dentists' Nominal Net Income for 2000 was $533,000 up from $141,000 in 1982, according to the American Dental Association Survey published in the March 2005 Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA). http://jada.ada.org/cgi/reprint/136/3/357
This article uses the ADA Survey Center as its source, which is available only to ADA members, which I am not.
It does appear that the line chart identifies the same dollar amount as "gross billings." I'm surprised this "error" get through JADA's peer review. This was published in March 2005 and still no correction made?
However, the point of my original article was that despite fluoridation, dentists salaries are going up - not down - as dentists predicted.
The author of the March 2005 JADA article, A. H. Guay, writes, "dentists real income has experienced growth throughout the period."
Also, according to the American Dental Association's web site reporting about the 2007 Survey of Dental Practice - Income from the Private Practice of Dentistry (April 2009)
In 2006 General Practioners earned an average net income of $202,930 while specialists’ average net income was $329,980 in that year. From 2002 to 2006, general practitioners net incomes have increased 16.4% while specialists’ incomes have grown by 13.3% during that same time period.
If the above data includes part-time dentists, then the average salaries for full-time dentists would be higher.
http://www.ada.org/ada/prod/survey/publications_newreports.asp#characteristics
Bottom line: Fluoridation isn't hurting dentists' bottom line.