Sir, the wee small hours are perfect for shaking the intellectual feathers from a problem. Tonight's teaser is a review of a book entitled: Ozone: The revolution in dentistry.1 I am uneasy. The review is glowing, apparently, written by a born again ozone convert who feels the technique will permanently change the face of dentistry for the better. However, the reviewer seems uncritical of the evidence base and apparently unaware of both a Cochrane review2 and an appraisal by The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)3 which both concluded that evidence of efficacy is currently lacking. The Editor of the BDJ will be aware of the wider picture so should he have published this review? Perhaps not.

The review will certainly stimulate discussion and the Editor considers this is always good. However, I could go on a naked ramble in Surbiton High Street and stimulate discussion, but it would not be that good to make such an idiot of myself. The problem with the written word is that it is there for all to see, for ever. The Editor of the BDJ is steering the flagship of British dentistry and I am a little embarrassed that this has slipped through the editorial net to land on the page in perpetuity. This is not to say I am averse to controversy. The journal has often published peer reviewed research that flies in the face of mainstream opinion. The papers considering the restorative management of deciduous teeth are an excellent example of challenging work that demands attention.4,5,6 However, these papers are fully discussed in the light of research evidence and gaps in the knowledge base are probed and acknowledged. They are fascinating because they are written critically and they should stimulate further research.

So what should an Editor do when sent such a book to review? One approach would be to return it to the publishers but perhaps this is ducking responsibility. Another is to take the present course and publish what is sent without comment or criticism leaving it to the letters column to pick up the argument. Maybe a better approach would have been to have the book reviewed by someone whose job it is to be conversant with the evidence so that a more balanced review could be presented – and here the Editor must be careful to obtain balance not bias. It is getting early and I need some sleep – time to count sheep jumping over gates or maybe naked Editors over hot air would be more fun.