Page 5 - Bulletin Vol 31 No 1 - Jan. - April 2026 FINAL_

Message from the Editor

As the Bulletin looks for a new Editor, this page will feature some favorites from past issues.
The following editorial first appeared in The Bulletin in 2014.

Destructive Criticism

Quality dentistry demands a critical eye. As dentists, we analyze and evaluate
our work constantly; we assess throughout treatment, modify accordingly, make
improvements as needed and intuitively know how important it is to be critical
of our own dentistry. To be critical of another dentist’s work is something alto-
gether different. Criticizing someone else is never appropriate, is potentially
harmful and without exception should be avoided.
Each new patient we see is another dentist’s former patient. When I examine a new patient I often find
some treatment completed to less than the academic ideal. It is not unusual when that “less than
perfect” restoration is fine for ten or more years. Quality x-rays can show imperfections in fillings, crowns,
bridges and root canal treatments that have been providing many years of service for the patient. We all
strive for perfection; yet know such lofty goals are not always obtained. Dentistry is a demanding art and
fortunately modern materials and proven dental procedures are to some extent forgiving. What may
appear as less than “perfect,” can be completely acceptable.
I have been a member of the Professional Liability Committee of the Nassau County Dental Society for
many years. It is upsetting to the committee to see many malpractice cases begin when one dentist is
critical of another. Even more upsetting is when one particular doctor’s critical remarks come up time and
time again as the catalyst for law suits. We are never surprised when this chronically disparaging dentist
becomes a defendant himself. The old saying, “what goes around comes around,” does happen, believe
me I have seen it! The Peer Review Committee also reports a disturbing percentage of cases initiated by a
dentist’s poor remarks concerning prior treatment.
There is a fine ethical line to consider when discovering clearly substandard treatment. We must
inform patients of pathology and deficiencies, yet how we describe what is wrong can have very
significant consequences. When I see an ill fitting crown in need of replacement I prefer, “this crown is
wearing out,” and not “who made this, it does not fit.” If a root canal is filled short of the apex, “the
dentist likely had a hard time getting to the end of this tooth,” is much kinder than and just as accurate as
“this root canal is no good and filled short.” Please consider how you would want your work described by
a subsequent treating practitioner whenever explaining to a new patient his or her condition.

I fail to understand why some of our colleagues openly criticize previous treatment. It has been
suggested that the criticism is an attempt to cut down the competition, to appear to be a superior dentist,
or simply to justify redoing work in order to keep busy. None of these reasons justify fault finding
descriptions concerning prior treatment. I never hire a contractor to work in my home if he criticizes the
work of another contractor and I suspect many patients would be turned off by a dentist who speaks
poorly about another dentist.

Continued on page 8

Nassau County Dental Society ⬧ (516) 227-1112 | 5