Category: Equipment

Is Pan Bitewings the same as Intra-oral bitewings?

There are certain companies that are out there trying to sell their Pan as the solution to x-rays.  They claim their machine is the only machine that does Pans and bitewings.  First of all, this is not true!!!  There are many machines that can take bitewings but will not use that as a selling feature.  Why you may ask?  Because reputable companies like Carestream and VaTech and others know that it is not possible to get the same diagnosis as an intra-oral x-ray.  Well here is another study that proves that companies that make this claim are selling you a machine that they want you to buy, not what is best for your practice.  ProMax is not the answer to all your needs.

Here is the study but the conclusion is this:  Conclusion: “Intraoral bitewing radiography was superior to extra oral bitewing and panoramic radiography in diagnosing proximal caries of premolar and molar teeth”

British Study Extra oral bitewings

Kavo Maintenance Summary!

KaVo Handpiece Users:

It has come to our attention that there might be some misperceptions in the local market place pertaining to the recommended maintenance of KaVo Dental Manufactured Handpieces. Failure to maintain KaVo’s handpieces according to KaVo’s recommended guidelines may void your “New Product Warranty” or the “REPAIRED Product Warranty.” It is best to always follow all manufactures recommended guidelines for proper maintenance.
Only authorized KaVo dealers have true OEM or genuine KaVo replacement parts. Danger / Warning – There are many handpiece repair companies / Internet sources which claim they have “KaVo Repair Parts.” Please note that these imitation parts do not operate to KaVo specifications and could damage your genuine KaVo product. Authorized KaVo Dealers in your area include: Henry Schein Dental, Benco Dental, Darby Dental, Dental Health Products, and Midway Dental.

KaVo Recommended Manual Maintenance Procedure (using KaVo Spray):
Remove Bur
Scrub handpiece under running water to remove debris
Spray KaVo Spray thoroughly for 3 seconds (ensure you use the correct top with your spray)
Insert the handpiece without bur onto the proper coupler of the dental unit or air purging station and run for at least 20 seconds
Attention: KaVo handpieces must be lubricated BEFORE every sterilization cycle

KaVo Recommended Automatic Maintenance Procedure with QUATTROcare® or QUATTROcare® Plus:
Remove Bur
Scrub handpiece under running water to remove debris
Place handpiece in QUATTROcare® or QUATTROcare® Plus Maintenance unit… Start and everything is done.

KaVo Warranty:
2 Years Standard Warranty *
2 ½ Year Warranty with a QUATTROcare® or QUATTROcare® Plus Maintenance System *

For Further Information: Contact KaVo Technical Support
KaVo Dental Corporation

Oral Cancer is the #2 leading cause of malpractice in dentistry.

Oral Cancer is the #2 leading cause of malpractice in dentistry and #1 in terms of average payout at upwards of $1,000,000. As oral cancer becomes more prevalent, especially with the advent of HPV, malpractice for misdiagnosis is also increasing. One of the other reasons is because lawyers are specifically now targeting this patient population. Check out the picture of this bill board campaign in multiple locations throughout the Chicagoland area.

Cancer Lawsuit Ad

Oral cancer screenings a must, say malpractice attorneys
Article Thumbnail ImageMarch 10, 2011 — The patient was insistent: All she wanted was to get her teeth whitened for an upcoming high school reunion. She came in for the $99 Internet special the dentist had run and mentioned a sore on her tongue, but she said it was recent, attributing it to a tongue-biting habit.
Member Sign In:
MemberID or E-mail Address:
Do you have a password?
No, I want a free membership.
Yes, I have a password:
Forgot your password? Click here.
The dentist did the procedure but advised the patient that she needed a follow-up oral exam.

The patient eventually went to an oral surgeon who diagnosed the young mother with terminal tongue cancer. She sued the dentist who did the teeth whitening for malpractice, for missing her oral cancer.

That case, Tale of the Tainted Tongue, was dramatized at the recent Chicago Dental Society Midwinter Meeting in a session highlighting the growing number of malpractice suits over missed oral cancer screenings.

“Document, document, document.”
— Anne Oldenburg, malpractice
Anne Oldenburg, an attorney with Alholm, Monahan, Klauke, Hay & Oldenburg, which specializes in dental malpractice cases, participated in the mock trial. Ten years ago she didn’t have many such cases, she told But that scenario has changed dramatically in recent years, she said, noting that she is currently involved in three dental malpractice cases.

The mock trial was similar to a previous lawsuit she handled, in which a young man in his 40s died. “It was oral cancer that was clearly missed,” Oldenburg recalled. The family settled for $750,000 because the children didn’t want to go through the litigation process, but many death cases can reach $1 million policy limits, she noted.

Her colleague, Linda Hay, pointed to a tongue cancer case now garnering national headlines involving noted Chicago chef Grant Achatz, who wrote a book about his battle with tongue cancer. His surgeons wanted to surgically remove part of his tongue, but he wanted to preserve his ability to taste and opted instead to undergo radiation and chemotherapy in 2007. Sadly, the treatment destroyed his ability to taste anyway, and Achatz sued his general dentist, alleging misdiagnosis. The case, which does not involve Oldenburg or Hay, will likely go to trial this year.

6-figure settlements

Publicity over actor Michael Douglas’s oropharyngeal cancer and movie critic Roger Ebert’s papillary thyroid cancer also has highlighted the growing incidence of oral cancer, especially among younger nonsmokers.

In fact, many plaintiffs who are suing their dentist for missed oral cancer diagnoses don’t fit the traditional profile, according to Hay. “It’s not the old drinker-smokers,” she noted. “We’re seeing more young people who don’t have the usual risk factors.”

Recent studies have attributed the steady increase of oral cancer to the human papillomavirus (HPV). Today, almost half of those diagnosed with the disease are younger than 50 years old — with some as young as 20, according to the Oral Cancer Foundation.

About 36,000 new cases of oral cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S., according to the ADA, and some 25% of those people will die of the disease. Only 57% of all diagnosed oral cancer patients will be alive five years after their diagnosis, according to the Oral Cancer Foundation. Approximately 100 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with oral cancer every day, and one person will die every hour from it.

Oldenburg attributes the growing incidence of missed diagnoses to casual patients who come in mainly for cosmetic procedures such as teeth whitening and aren’t planning on staying with the dentist.

“They’re swooping in and getting cosmetic procedures, and they’re done,” she explained. “The dentists are missing an opportunity to do detailed follow-up and comprehensive exams. Had the patient [in the mock trial] come back, the dentist would have seen it [the lesion] was still there, and he would have the opportunity to take steps.”

Most cases settle out of court, with amounts averaging six figures, Hay said. Settlements also depend on the patient’s age, their occupation, and whether they have children. The number of malpractice cases involving oral cancer has risen dramatically in the past few years, the attorneys said.

Million-dollar settlements usually occur only when the patient dies, they added.

Hay recounted a malpractice case involving a man who developed an infection that spread to his brain following an extraction. The patient, who claimed he had permanently lost a lot of brain function, sued his general dentist, the oral surgeon who did the extraction, the family doctor, and the hospital where he had been taken. The oral surgeon’s insurance company paid the approximately $500,000 settlement.

Some policies have settlement clauses that limit a dentist’s ability to litigate such cases, according to James Carney, who specializes in dental malpractice claims for Southpoint Insurance Agency and humorously portrayed a bored judge in the mock trial. For example, if an insurance company wants to settle a case for $250,000 but the dentist insists on going to trial, he would have to pay the difference if he loses in court.

“With the downturn in the economy, there’s more pressure to earn a profit, and some companies are re-evaluating how to defend such cases and how they settle claims,” Carney told

He, too, has noticed a marked increase in dental malpractice cases. “I’m seeing more and more of them — two to three claims a year, where before we didn’t see any,” Carney said. The standard policy limit is $1 million, but some carriers provide $5 million to $7 million coverage, he added.

Carney agreed with the attorneys that patients often bear some responsibility in such cases, although other factors can be relevant as well.

“You can have a patient who is complacent in following the dentist’s treatment plan,” he said. “Technology comes into play if the dentist doesn’t have the appropriate technology to detect or diagnose some of these issues.” And patients are sometimes untruthful with the dentist about symptoms, he said.

When it comes to the dollar amount of a settlement, life expectancy is a significant consideration, Carney noted.

“If the patient is a successful businessperson with three young children, you can just fill in the number you want,” he said.

Dentists can avoid malpractice suits by doing simple things, such as documentation, taking the time with a patient, and doing a thorough oral exam — “things they teach in dental school,” Carney said.

Oldenburg agreed.

“Document, document, document,” she said. “And do your oral cancer screen even if they’re only coming in for a $99 special.”


Call or Email me if you would like a demo or a local MI seminar.

Philip Cole

989-233-4200 or

House Approves Permanent Small-Business Tax Break. Break Allows Small Businesses to Write Off up to $500,000 in New Equipment Purchases

The House voted to make permanent a tax break allowing small businesses to write off up to $500,000 in new equipment purchases.

The vote was 272-144, with several dozen Democrats joining Republicans to support the measure.

The vote adds to momentum for congressional efforts to extend a range of now-temporary tax breaks, many of which expired at the end of 2013. But it also sharpens an emerging conflict between the House and Senate over whether to extend the breaks permanently or temporarily.

The list of temporary tax breaks has grown over the years, and now includes more than 50 separate provisions affecting businesses as well as individuals.
By now, the cost of making them all permanent is proving to be prohibitive—almost $1 trillion over the next decade. But many of the breaks are so popular or important that lawmakers are reluctant to eliminate them.

House Republicans are trying to make permanent a few of the most significant ones, such as the expensing provision, in an effort to give certainty to businesses as well as government budget writers. The expensing provision gives small businesses the ability to write off equipment purchases up front, rather than depreciating them over a period of years. The amount has been set at $500,000 since 2010, but without congressional action would fall to about $25,000 for 2014.
“It’s time to make it a permanent part of the tax code,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, in floor debate on Thursday. “Why not do something good for America?…What we really need is permanent policy.”

Democrats said House Republicans’ effort would force cuts in spending, especially from social programs. They also warned that putting expensive business breaks on a permanent footing would make it harder to rewrite the tax code.

“This is piecemeal and an ill-considered way to do tax reform,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D., Mass.).

The House also passed a second bill, 263-155, to ease the tax burden somewhat on firms that convert from taxable corporate status to small-business status. Small businesses generally are organized so they don’t pay a corporate-level tax; instead, the owners pay tax on the profits through their individual returns.

The Obama administration said it opposed making the two provisions permanent. “Republicans are imposing a double standard by adding to the deficit to fund tax breaks for businesses, while insisting on offsetting the cost of measures that help middle-class and working Americans,” such as extending emergency unemployment insurance, the White House said.
Senate Democrats want to extend virtually all the breaks for another two years, a path that could prove politically easier in a year when major policy changes are proving almost impossible in Congress.

The conflict over the so-called extenders appears likely to drag on for much of the year, and perhaps until after the November election.