Wipe that brilliant-white smile off your face, says EU

telegraph ^ | 23/02/2003 | Lorraine Fraser

[Between the Lines]

British dentists have been warned that they face criminal prosecution under EU law if they use tooth- whitening treatments to give their patients hollywood smiles.

The Department of Trade and Industry says that the nation's most common tooth-whitening procedure - thought to have been used by Britney Spears, Catherine Zeta Jones, Julia Roberts, Elizabeth Hurley, Tom Cruise and even Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer - is illegal under EU rules governing the supply of hydrogen peroxide bleach.

Dentists have now been warned that they face six months in jail or a £5,000 fine if they offer the treatment, which involves applying bleaching gel to the surface of the teeth using an individually- fashioned mouth mould. A 30-minute whitening session, in which laser light is used to enhance results, can cost up to £1,000 and some 100,000 people in Britain are thought to have used the treatment.

The warning also applies to at-home treatments, which cost about £200, in which the dentist provides the bleaching gel and prepares a mould that the patient can wear over their teeth for an hour or so each day over three to four weeks. British dentists claim that they are being singled out over a perfectly safe treatment which is legal in America and tolerated elsewhere across Europe.

Mervyn Druian, a specialist in cosmetic dentistry and a spokesman for the British Dental Association, said: "The whole thing is ridiculous. Tooth whitening is effective and it means that, for a one-off sum without any major intervention, the patient can walk out of the surgery looking and feeling better." Dentists should be able to do whatever they need to do for patients."

George Rodgers, a dentist in Wigan who has received a warning letter from trading standards officers about the treatment, said: "It is immoral of this government to make illegal by petty bureaucracy a treatment which is safe and far less destructive than its alternatives, especially as this tooth whitening is available in America and across Europe."

The legal issue lies in an EU ruling that classifies tooth whitening products as "cosmetic" and makes it illegal to supply hydrogen peroxide bleach for them at greater than 0.1 per cent concentration.

Kits prepared by dentists for use by patients at home can contain 40 times that concentration: the faster-acting treatments given in surgeries use hydrogen peroxide in concentrations as high as 38 per cent.

Although the supply of concentrated tooth whitening bleach has technically been illegal for several years, the rules are enforced by local authorities, who have never previously applied them to dentists.

Following an investigation into a supply company, however, trading standards officers began writing to dentists in Wigan warning them that they also faced investigation and possible charges. More local authorities are now expected to follow suit.

Alan Blundell, the chief trading standards officer for Wigan, said that officers had to be "sensitive" to whether a prosecution would be considered reasonable but they nevertheless had an obligation to inform dentists of the law.

His letter also warned dentists that they could end up in difficulties if a patient reacted badly to the treatment as the client could claim that they had not been given goods that were "fit for their purpose".

The Dental Defence Union has also warned dentists that they may have problems claiming that their patients have properly consented to a treatment if it is deemed illegal. The EU's scientific committee for cosmetics and non-food products has recommended that the permitted level of hydrogen peroxide be raised to 6 per cent: however, it is not known when this recommendation will become law.

Reports that Gordon Brown had undergone tooth- whitening treatment surfaced last year as colleagues noticed a brightening of his smile. A Treasury spokesman said: "We are not in the habit of commenting on this sort of thing".

[mlmr]

And technically, dental caries IS a communicable diesase, and left untreated can become very disabling

Be real, comparing dental caries to dysentary or typhoid is dramatic and silly.

[mlmr]

I don't happen to think that dental caries are a government concern. It is too intrusive.

[aruanan]

Tooth decay is not a life threatening communicable disease. Clean drinking water protects the herd. Tooth decay is a personal problem.

Bacteria that cause decay are also implicated in life-threatening cardiac disease (so much so that if one has any type of cardiac valve irregularity, such as a heart murmur or mitral valve prolapse, one must take antibiotics before dental work is performed--I know because I had to do this at one of the top hospitals in the U.S.). And they are communicable. Your second sentence has nothing to do with tooth decay. Your third sentence is false. Tooth decay is a communicable disease spread to children (largely) by their parents (mostly by their mothers).

If, instead of attacking the teeth, the bacteria caused holes to appear in your penis or, if you're a woman, in your breasts, resulting in their eventual destruction, you'd be a lot more concerned about Streptococcus mutaans.

[mlmr]

They therefore should take common sense measures to do that (common sense being in short supply in government is besides the fact) which is why we chlorinate the water, require appropriate vaccinations, regulate food service, etc.



There is a difference between things that the government does to provide public safety...and the things that the government does to meet its own idea of what you need. One is about saftey the other is nanny-state issue. Floridation of water is a nanny state issue.

[mlmr]

But the bacteria that causes decay is not prevented by floridation. That bacteria is present in all mouths.

[cowtowney]

[Lady Jag]

Smile!

[TomB]

Floridation of water is a nanny state issue.

You keep ignoring the fact that the "nanny state" has nothing to do with fluoridation, other than encouraging local governments to do it with monetary support. A large percentage of the country's water supplies are not fluoridated, if what you are saying were true, everyone (with some exceptions) would have fluoridated water, just like everyone has innoculations or pays taxes.

If the population were not forced to take care of those who are least likely to take care of their own health needs, you would have a point, but since the "nanny state" spends many millions (if not billions) of dollars a year to treat dental problems, fluoridation is a simple, COMPLETELY SAFE, and cost effective way to reduce those expenditures.

[TomB]

But the bacteria that causes decay is not prevented by floridation. That bacteria is present in all mouths.

It isn't the presence of the bacteria, it is the number. People with rampant caries have much more of the bacteria in their mouths, causing more of a problem.

[Nebullis]

Floridation of water is a nanny state issue.

You accept the nanny state for water chlorination because it benefits the herd. The principle is the same. The cost/benefit ratio is a no-brainer.

[timydnuc]

This, my friends, is HillaryCare. It was purposed, under HillaryCare, that a physician providing care beyond the limits of coverage, by the government, be held liable for violations of the 'law' and be fined and imprisioned, regardless if he/she was paid or not. Thereby taking away both humanitarian, and capitalistic opportunities. You could not even do what was needed to save a person's life with out prior approval from a beaurocrat.

Hillary wanted to take the Doctor out of Doctor and give it to her and her ilk. Think about that the next time you choke on a chicken bone, or have a child with a high fever!

[Nebullis]

Besides, chlorine is a toxin. Fluoride is an essential nutrient.

[mlmr]

Preventing dental caries does not protect the herd.

[mlmr]

Chlorine kills bacteria and prevents herd diseases. Floride does not.

[Nebullis]

A matter of principle doesn't depend on the specific mechanism of action.

[Between the Lines]

Ok, lets change this thread to floridation.... Europeans with yellow teeth didn't interest us anyways.

[Political Junkie Too]

THE EUROWEENIES WANT YELLOW TEETH

They want everyone to look like that French Clonaid woman?

-PJ

[chyk]

Again Tom, with mlmr this is a case of the scientific error and medical superstition, and sometimes downright fraud that has permutated the Fl debate. People with not even the basic facts about a paricular scientific or medical issue and its consequences making wrongheaded subterfuge. And the cowardly and equally wrongheaded politicians at the local level (in both parties) afraid to stand up to them.

The original thread about tooth whitening only points out where this all goes. Either by action with the whitening or inaction with Fl the public suffers in either health or economic ways.

With teeth the issue is always trivialized because when it is someone else, or someone elses child, with the rotten teeth, infections, and disfigurement, it is material for jokes. But did you ever notice when those same individuals(like the politicians or media) need a dentist for themselves or their child, they want a dentist who is a cross between Michelangelo, Mother Theresa, and Albert Einstein. What we as dentists have been saying for years is eliminate the need for us completely. Otherwise make us another million, thank you, and take another few billion from the taxpayers and consumers pocketbooks. And live with your elitist, selfish consciences for the kids you have withheld one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century from. Talk about dark ages mentalities.

Hows that for a passonates dentist.

[ladylib]

My mother's dentist says this craze for whitening teeth is not the best thing to do and years down the road might be detrimental. In your professional opinion, is it safe?

Thanks.

[chyk]

As a craze, I don't like any craze in medicine or dentistry. But as a sober, conservative means to improve a persons appearance, its fine. Like anything in medicine and dentistry there are patients and doctors who will overuse/abuse it. But there is no research that shows that it is detrimental to teeth, gums, or the rest of the body if it is used as instructed, preferably under a doctor's supervision and prescription. And it is a relatively conservative treatment compared to the cosmetic alternatives.

The reaction of the Brits is a wacky, junk-science over reaction because it takes a low cost, non-invasive alternative for cosmetic improvement away from dentists and their patients.

The alternatives to bleaching are expensive, invasive(surgery and/or drilling teeth so certainly not as safe), and will have to be redone through the years, thus compounding these.
I've done some simple, short term bleaching on relatives without a second thought about safety.

On some dental message boards, I've also read some British dentists speculate of an ulterior motive: too many people were going to the dentist paying out of pocket for the bleaching which is not covered by the NHS, then using the NHS for regular covered dental treatment and placing a further strain on the system.?