Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday March 01 2017, @08:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-study-that-has-some-bite dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Research out of the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health suggests preventive dental care provided by a dentist for children before the age of 2 enrolled in Medicaid in Alabama may lead to more care long-term. Early preventive dental care was associated with more frequent subsequent treatment for tooth decay, more visits and more spending on dental care, compared with no early preventive dental care for children, according to a study.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry recommend children see a dentist once baby teeth begin to come in; but limited evidence is available about the effectiveness of early preventive dental care or whether primary care providers can deliver it. Despite the focus on preventive dental care, dental caries, such as tooth decay or cavities, are on the rise in children under the age of 5.

The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, compared tooth decay-related treatment, visits and dental expenditures for children receiving preventive dental care from a dentist or primary care provider, and those receiving no preventive dental care.

[...] "Adding to a limited body of literature on early preventive dental care, we observed little evidence of the benefits of this care, regardless of the provider. In fact, preventive dental care from dentists appears to increase caries-related treatment, which is surprising. Additional research among other populations and beyond administrative data may be necessary to elucidate the true effects of early preventive dental care," the study concluded.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday March 01 2017, @11:14PM

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday March 01 2017, @11:14PM (#473602)

    but looking at cost in the long run is quite useless or just for some political agendum.

    It's political in the sense of entitlement programs. At the end of the day, the rich kids will still be seen regardless of increased costs. Their parents will pay it, because they're rich. However, the poor kids living in poor families that require government assistance will no longer be seen. Due to the fact they don't deserve the money in the first place being wards of the state and burdens to society and all that.

    Don't forget, that the money *saved* will go the executives and shareholders in some other program. Possibly a defense contract that just SO much more important than the health of our children. At least our poor children. The rich children still get the good food, excellent access to medical care, you name it.

    Little bobby with poor parents? Fuck him, fuck his parents, and he can survive just fine without costly preventative treatments.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3