@apexiti That is the official stance, though the membership is pickking these up like hot cakes. 50% of new Periolase owners, for the last two years, have been Periodontists. The ratio of Dentists to Periodontists is about 5%. 10% of the AAP now have the Periolase. All have had a 6 month clinical money back guarantee. No Periodontist has ever returned one. I wonder why?
@apexiti As far as, if there is enough evidence for LANAP? I have no doubt after doing over 1000 cases that it works. Though I too was skeptical in fact it took me over 8 years of knowing it worked before I purchased the Periolase.
Your concern is if there is sufficient academic research. Consider looking up the AAP's web site and looking at the Academy statements of the 8 statements only one does not have a date after it. I wonder why? Could it be 1999 and starts "In a recent" WOW
@apexiti WOW a 10 year old statement in a profession that is less than 100 years old!
So after over 10 years in the literature, I ask you Who and Where are the stewards of Perio? Don't you think that after over 10 years, some literature could be produced to disprove the claims?
What I do know is that 10% of Active members of the AAP (Ethically qualified to announce as a specialist in periodontology) own the Periolase. I do not know of their American board of Perio status.
@johnddscom As far as the 10 years that you talked about, there is over 700 publications on lasers and only a handful is considered academic which states that it is inconclusive on lasers of all available wavelength. I'm not saying that it doesn't work or it does. I actually don't know what to make of it. 10% or not, that doesn't matter, the position paper does not support it nor does the meta-analysis on any of these peer reviewed journal. Stewards of perio, I won't even get into that.
@apexiti Consider the AAP statement on laser ENAP was written by Charlie Cob, The AAP position on lasers was written by Cob, the ADA position on lasers was written by Cob, the paper that said lasers burned roots was written by Cob/McCawley. McCawley now owns and uses the Periolase (search for him here on youtube) and admitted Cob would only publish negative results and chose to not publish the positve results.
Cob can also by found on DentalTown you can do a search "Well known lecturer lies on stage caught on tape" In that lecture Cob claims to have done over 50 or 60 lanap cases (Does not own the Periolase and never been to training for the Patented LANAP protocol) and was taught by David Thein how to do it. I personnaly spoke to David and he told me he was very hurt by Chalies claims for he considered him a friend since they both teach at UMKC and he never taught him how to do lanap.
@apexiti Ray Yukna when he embarked on the fourth largest Human Histological paper in the Perio lit, the intent was on disproving the claims made. Though the results turned out to be, and this is a quote from the FDA clearence that is now over 5 years old, "NEW CEMENTUM MEDIATED CONECTIVE TISSUE ATTACHEMENT TO THE ROOT SURFACE IN THE ABSCENCE OF LONG JUNCTIONAL EPITHELIUM" That finding was found in 100% of the teeth on the laser side and 0% in the SRP control teeth
@johnddscom I did read Yukna's paper and the well aware of Cob. Yukna, useless paper due to very low power of the study, ie, insignificant. Cob, same thing. I did not hear or read anything good with his UNCONTROLLED STUDY. I suggest when you recommend the research, look at the raw numbers and the statistics; as a bonus, a paper that is not sponsored.
@apexiti Appears you have not read the Yukna paper for it is very clear it was blinded, and controlled. To consider human histology "insignificant" is to not know that the IRB and the FDA do not take a study like this lightly.
My Grandfather fought in WW1 and died in WW2 his death was not in vain for the Nuremberg treaty was signed and established norms for human experimentation
Human Histology is one of the highest forms of evidence on the hierarchy of evidence.
@johnddscom If you have a different paper that's worth looking into, very open to it. I do enjoy looking and applaude the stride forward into new armaments but needs to be convincing.
@apexiti When you consider human histology as "insignificant" then what would impress you? Dog studies? A controlled clinical trial is under way at U of Colorado, U of Louisville, U of Maryland and two private practices. Though I'm sure your previous snide remark will surface once again "a paper that is not sponsored" So for you there will never be enough evidence.
Admit it your resistance is only economical. You are to cheap to invest in technology for the benefit of your patients.
@johnddscom You call Yukna's 5 person study a research? Histology, hmmm, we already know what it looks like. Dog model, I'll shed some light into dog model for you. A fox hound will never get perio disease. Is that genetically different enough for you? Sponsor, does bias into study mean anything to you. Why don't you read Oxford classification for research. I don't mind investing as long as it is something worth while for me. Besides, its a tax write off. By the way, I'm having fun with this.
@apexiti FYI 6 patients. All I can deduce from your attempt to marginalize Human Histology is that you do not know what it means to do a Human Histology paper. Dog studies can no longer be done under IRB's. That would be considered cruelty to animals. You chastize the sposor but when I ask you Who are the stewards of Perio? you dismiss the question. You can not have it both ways. Again LANAP has been in the literature over 10 years. No literature has been shown to disprove the FDA claim.
@johnddscom I like your enthusiasm and passion. There are no chastising of sponsors. Stewards of perio, there are always people doing things different. I prefer to go by something more convincing. I have done research and I know how to reference them. IRB's not for dog, its for human. There are a lot of good research out there but to prove lasers worth is just not there.
@apexiti We will have to agree to disagree on lasers and Perio. Though IMO the only ones hurt by your decision will be the patients. Again take the challenge, prove the laser wrong, use it for 6 months and if it doesn't work return it.
@apexiti Take up the manufacturers 6 month clinical guarantee, if it does not reduce pockets by 50% 90% of the time you can return it for the clinical money back guarantee. If you don't Uncle Sam knows how to spend your money better than you ;-)
is it effective? has anyone tryed this procedure?
mommysminiprincess 2 years ago
@mommysminiprincess
Why don't you read the research literature and see if there is an advantage over this compared to traditional treatment. You'll be surprised
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti What do you find surprising?
johnddscom 1 year ago
@johnddscom The academy does not support lasers of any sort.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti That is the official stance, though the membership is pickking these up like hot cakes. 50% of new Periolase owners, for the last two years, have been Periodontists. The ratio of Dentists to Periodontists is about 5%. 10% of the AAP now have the Periolase. All have had a 6 month clinical money back guarantee. No Periodontist has ever returned one. I wonder why?
johnddscom 1 year ago
@johnddscom So, does that mean there is enough evidence and academic research for its use? And, when you say 10%, are you saying they are diplomates?
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti As far as, if there is enough evidence for LANAP? I have no doubt after doing over 1000 cases that it works. Though I too was skeptical in fact it took me over 8 years of knowing it worked before I purchased the Periolase.
Your concern is if there is sufficient academic research. Consider looking up the AAP's web site and looking at the Academy statements of the 8 statements only one does not have a date after it. I wonder why? Could it be 1999 and starts "In a recent" WOW
johnddscom 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti WOW a 10 year old statement in a profession that is less than 100 years old!
So after over 10 years in the literature, I ask you Who and Where are the stewards of Perio? Don't you think that after over 10 years, some literature could be produced to disprove the claims?
What I do know is that 10% of Active members of the AAP (Ethically qualified to announce as a specialist in periodontology) own the Periolase. I do not know of their American board of Perio status.
johnddscom 1 year ago
@johnddscom As far as the 10 years that you talked about, there is over 700 publications on lasers and only a handful is considered academic which states that it is inconclusive on lasers of all available wavelength. I'm not saying that it doesn't work or it does. I actually don't know what to make of it. 10% or not, that doesn't matter, the position paper does not support it nor does the meta-analysis on any of these peer reviewed journal. Stewards of perio, I won't even get into that.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti Consider the AAP statement on laser ENAP was written by Charlie Cob, The AAP position on lasers was written by Cob, the ADA position on lasers was written by Cob, the paper that said lasers burned roots was written by Cob/McCawley. McCawley now owns and uses the Periolase (search for him here on youtube) and admitted Cob would only publish negative results and chose to not publish the positve results.
johnddscom 1 year ago
Cob can also by found on DentalTown you can do a search "Well known lecturer lies on stage caught on tape" In that lecture Cob claims to have done over 50 or 60 lanap cases (Does not own the Periolase and never been to training for the Patented LANAP protocol) and was taught by David Thein how to do it. I personnaly spoke to David and he told me he was very hurt by Chalies claims for he considered him a friend since they both teach at UMKC and he never taught him how to do lanap.
johnddscom 1 year ago
Charlie did go to David's office to see him do one lanap case but chose to never come back to see the post op.
johnddscom 1 year ago
@johnddscom also, research is not about disproving claims.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti Ray Yukna when he embarked on the fourth largest Human Histological paper in the Perio lit, the intent was on disproving the claims made. Though the results turned out to be, and this is a quote from the FDA clearence that is now over 5 years old, "NEW CEMENTUM MEDIATED CONECTIVE TISSUE ATTACHEMENT TO THE ROOT SURFACE IN THE ABSCENCE OF LONG JUNCTIONAL EPITHELIUM" That finding was found in 100% of the teeth on the laser side and 0% in the SRP control teeth
johnddscom 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnddscom I did read Yukna's paper and the well aware of Cob. Yukna, useless paper due to very low power of the study, ie, insignificant. Cob, same thing. I did not hear or read anything good with his UNCONTROLLED STUDY. I suggest when you recommend the research, look at the raw numbers and the statistics; as a bonus, a paper that is not sponsored.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti Appears you have not read the Yukna paper for it is very clear it was blinded, and controlled. To consider human histology "insignificant" is to not know that the IRB and the FDA do not take a study like this lightly.
My Grandfather fought in WW1 and died in WW2 his death was not in vain for the Nuremberg treaty was signed and established norms for human experimentation
Human Histology is one of the highest forms of evidence on the hierarchy of evidence.
johnddscom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnddscom If you have a different paper that's worth looking into, very open to it. I do enjoy looking and applaude the stride forward into new armaments but needs to be convincing.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti When you consider human histology as "insignificant" then what would impress you? Dog studies? A controlled clinical trial is under way at U of Colorado, U of Louisville, U of Maryland and two private practices. Though I'm sure your previous snide remark will surface once again "a paper that is not sponsored" So for you there will never be enough evidence.
Admit it your resistance is only economical. You are to cheap to invest in technology for the benefit of your patients.
johnddscom 1 year ago
Comment removed
apexiti 1 year ago
@johnddscom You call Yukna's 5 person study a research? Histology, hmmm, we already know what it looks like. Dog model, I'll shed some light into dog model for you. A fox hound will never get perio disease. Is that genetically different enough for you? Sponsor, does bias into study mean anything to you. Why don't you read Oxford classification for research. I don't mind investing as long as it is something worth while for me. Besides, its a tax write off. By the way, I'm having fun with this.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti FYI 6 patients. All I can deduce from your attempt to marginalize Human Histology is that you do not know what it means to do a Human Histology paper. Dog studies can no longer be done under IRB's. That would be considered cruelty to animals. You chastize the sposor but when I ask you Who are the stewards of Perio? you dismiss the question. You can not have it both ways. Again LANAP has been in the literature over 10 years. No literature has been shown to disprove the FDA claim.
johnddscom 1 year ago
@johnddscom I like your enthusiasm and passion. There are no chastising of sponsors. Stewards of perio, there are always people doing things different. I prefer to go by something more convincing. I have done research and I know how to reference them. IRB's not for dog, its for human. There are a lot of good research out there but to prove lasers worth is just not there.
apexiti 1 year ago
@apexiti We will have to agree to disagree on lasers and Perio. Though IMO the only ones hurt by your decision will be the patients. Again take the challenge, prove the laser wrong, use it for 6 months and if it doesn't work return it.
johnddscom 1 year ago
@apexiti Take up the manufacturers 6 month clinical guarantee, if it does not reduce pockets by 50% 90% of the time you can return it for the clinical money back guarantee. If you don't Uncle Sam knows how to spend your money better than you ;-)
johnddscom 1 year ago