A prominent article in today's Wall Street Journal focuses on the growing popularity of sedation dentistry and makes clear why the American Dental Association's efforts to stymie the spread of this successful treatment protocol are ultimately doomed to fail.  (Read It Here -- WSJ Subscription Required)

The story, 'Did I Really Have a Root Canal?', makes a strong case of why sedation dentistry is proving popular with both patients and dentists, noting that roughly 85 million Americans still avoid the dentist out of dread. 

The story, by reporter Joseph De Avila, quotes experts and dentists testifying to the safety of oral conscious sedation (OCS) and OCS medicines when administered by practitioners following existing ADA guidelines and state regulations.

That can't be an easy pill for the ADA to swallow. 

The ADA -- or more specifically the ADA's Council on Dental Education and Licensure -- would like ADA members to believe that tougher standards are called for in order for OCS to be safe.  Having the WSJ report that it is already safe under existing standards won't go down well with the ADA agitators who are trying to put the OCS genie back in the bottle.

Triazolam is "a very safe drug," said Dr. John Yagiela, division chair for diagnostic and surgical sciences at the University of California Los Angeles School of Dentistry.  The Wall Street Journal article also cites a 2003 study by the Dental Organization for Conscious Sedation covering 28,881 OCS cases using Triazolam.  Out of that large group, "there were 85 adverse cases -- 19 of which involved the administration of flumazenil [a reversal agent].  None resulted in the need for hospitalization," the Journal reported.

The newspaper found a single Ohio dentist who felt that she can achieve the same benefits offered by OCS using only nitrous oxide.  But even the Journal had to rebut her, writing, "Nevertheless, many patients and dentists say the technique is invaluable."

Now that millions of additional readers of the Journal will know about the safe, effective benefits of OCS, we suspect those in the ADA who would like to slow the progress of this important protocol will face increased difficulties.

As we noted here not long ago, progress can sometimes be artificially delayed, but not even the ADA can kill it.