If approved as proposed:

• More than 6,000 dentists who are currently administering adult oral conscious sedation in accordance with existing ADA guidelines would -- in the eyes of the ADA – immediately cease to be qualified to offer their patients OCS.

• More than half a million anxious or fearful patients who each year rely on OCS to make their dental visits bearable will be stopped from visiting the dentist altogether.  Only when they can no longer stand the pain or they develop life threatening infections  will they seek out a dentist.

• Those few dentists who wish to meet the ADA’s new, higher educational requirements – including 60 hours didactic, IV training and 10 live patients – will pay three times to five times the current cost for their oral conscious sedation training.  They will also have to set aside three to five times the number of days away from their regular practice responsibilities to receive their new training.

• Oral surgeons, who will by definition meet the ADA’s new, more stringent guidelines, will see their caseloads swell.  Patients who still insist on receiving OCS, will pay significantly more and wait significantly longer to be seen by a dentist.  Handicaped and indigent patients requiring OCS will wait the longest.

• Public confidence in the ADA as an organization committed to its oral health will be significantly undermined.  The public will be quick to realize that it is paying the price for the benefit of a small group of self-interested, self-important dental specialists.

Against this backdrop, the question arises what findings have the Committee on Anesthesiology uncovered that would provide a justification for making such significant changes?

• Are the incidents of injury or fatalities stemming from the application of OCS under existing ADA guidelines on the rise?  If so, release the statistics to back up the claim.

• Have patient complaints risen to the ADA concerning OCS abuses on the part of dentists who are following existing ADA guidelines?  If so, quantify the incidences.

• Have large numbers of dentists currently offering OCS expressed their consensus opinion that their existing training is inadequate and thus demanded that they receive more training?  If so, tell us about this groundswell.

• Has the public at large indicated that it prefers to pay more for dental visits and wait longer to see a qualified dentist?  The likelihood seems so remote as to be laughable.

If the ADA has evidence of the need for significant revision to its existing OCS guidelines, let it present the evidence to the public and dental profession.  But lacking any such foundation – at least to our knowledge – we can only conclude that the ADA is aiming to fix a problem that isn’t broken. 

Why would it do that? 

It’s a question we must all put to the ADA, its Anesthesia Committee members and delegates.  Where, so to speak, is the beef?