Sir, Edwina Kidd running naked through the streets of Surbiton! What would the Guy's chaps pay for that come next rag week? Talking of a rag I think Professor Kidd's letter (BDJ 2005; 199: 485 ) gave the new BDJ Editor quite a severe ragging, in spite of her confessed lack of sleep! I feel if she had been more awake she might have reflected better on her action in sending the BDJ such a letter for publication.

While I have absolutely no complaint about the comments made by Professor Kidd and that of Dr Richards' letter (same edition), pertaining to NICE and the Cochrain group's reporting that there is insufficient hard evidence published into the efficacy of the therapeutic use of ozone in dentistry, it makes me wonder if either of the two distinguished letter writers have actually read the book (Ozone: A revolution in dentistry)?

Professor Kidd may reveal too much of her own personal bias (as opposed to the 'balance' she seeks) when she uses language referring to the reviewer of the ozone book as a 'born again ozone fanatic'. The language used by Professor Kidd is strong stuff, hardly professional in the academic sense, maybe even a little offensive. Perhaps we can refer to Edwina as a born again needle and drill fanatic? How would that feel?

As a graduate of the 1970s, which I hope can be reasonably regarded as in the 'modern era', it reminds us of all the dogmatic rubbish we were taught as gospel: Black's cavity design is such a classic example — I painfully remember being made to feel a total fool when as an undergraduate I had the temerity to ask why we should have to cut out such massive cavities in teeth that had minimal carious lesions. What about the huge flaps and bony contouring in periodontal therapy? Apicectomies for teeth with large apical areas, the routine decoronating of root filled anterior teeth, wholesale surgical removal of symptom-less unerupted teeth, never place any acid etchant near dentine, Ante's law, etc, I could go on and on. All of these things are now regarded as silly. What of the introduction of something like ozone into dentistry? The therapeutic use of ozone in dentistry represents exciting potential that could change the face of our work. It is so typical of traditional dental academics (how many patients do you treat each week Professor Kidd and Dr Richards?) to want to throw scorn on such an amazing innovation. Why not be enthused by the concept?

The serious people involved in ozone research (that includes me) have never suggested that the therapy is proven beyond doubt. There are individuals out there with a mission to oppose the work and, sadly, these people are condemning the ozone project without any foundation themselves. I am in complete agreement that many more randomised controlled trials need to be completed and a lot more research is required. The whole point of the ozone textbook is to present all the work that has already been carried out and the results that have been achieved thus far and that is all.

There is a misconception out there (usually peddled by the opposers of the ozone project) that ozone can 'cure' all aspects of dental caries. The fact is the ozone research work is centred on the early carious lesion and for root surface decay and it is wholly unfair for the anti brigade to go around suggesting that the born again ozone fanatics are claiming miracles! This is not the case, please, read the book!

With such exciting potential of the use of ozone in dentistry, would it not be uplifting if the cynical out there kept an open mind and would want to become personally involved in the research? Dare I suggest that one may detect a whiff of halitosis from the little green gremlin of envy that sits on the shoulder of a few academics who specialise in cariology because they didn't think of using the ozone system themselves first? (No, naughty boy, I should not think that).

After all these years, our best efforts remain embedded in the needle and drill; totally shameful in my opinion since we have known for years what is the basic cause of dental decay and periodontal diseases yet we continue to train our dental students so badly in that the needle and drill is regarded the number one tool in our armoury.

I don't know if ozone therapy will prove to be a wonderful therapeutic agent, or a false dawn, but we should feel ashamed that people in our noble profession wish to remain so negative to anything that could prove to be a revolution in our approach to the prevention and cure of dental diseases. No, not hot air Professor Kidd, but a blast of ozone! A genuine attempt todo something better than the needle and drill.