Sir, I remain very concerned that Nicky Stanford continues his misleading and scaremongering tactics, including through the letters of the BDJ.1 He knows full well that the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) refuse to even consider the proper best practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) criteria in their deliberations. The ASA will now only consider very clear orthodontic results from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) – it means nothing to the ASA even if one has a hundred consecutive good fast ortho cases as a clinician; no RCTs = no claims/possibilities are now allowed to benefit others on informative websites or adverts, basically.
That is very narrow and punitive ASA criteria for those clinicians achieving great clinical results on a very regular EBM basis. It could now mean almost all 'current practice' claims/possibilities in dentistry may not be made publicly, including orthodontics improving intra-oral health, at all. So ironically Nicky Stanford (and his small group of co-conspirators?) may well be making a bigger rod for their own UK orthodontic colleagues' backs.2
I also note straight after his 11 March 2016 BDJ letter was published3 it was critiqued heavily upon social media in the following days. Nicky Stanford only then sets out looking for other victims many weeks after this, prosecuting his campaign again and complaining afresh to the ASA on 23 April 2016.4 Thus there was no overlap of his ASA complaints/outcomes and his 2017 excuse for not responding/apologising for his original misleading and scaremongering tactics in 2016, just compound errors and now looks manipulative, vindictive or potentially abusive.5
A non-academic may not know what EBM multiple-criteria actually are (best practice), but to mislead BDJ readers without making this aspect clear, then scaremongering with partial information and implied threats to registrants, is simply unacceptable.3 Nicky Stanford now owes myself, our profession and readers of the BDJ a double-apology after a double-dose of reflection, otherwise he is in danger of remaining double-blind vengefully, I fear.
References
Stanford N . Orthodontics: Falling foul of standards. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 498.
Millett D T, Cunningham S J, O'Brien K D, Benson P, Williams A, de Oliveira C M . Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD005972.
Stanford N . Orthodontics: Fast removal of claims. Br Dent J 2016; 220: 220.
ASA Ruling on IGDP Ltd. 8 March 2017. Available at: http://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/igdp-ltd-a16-348854.html (accessed 15 May 2017).
Kilcoyne T . Orthodontics: monopolistic behaviours. Br Dent J 2016; 220: 558.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kilcoyne, T. Orthodontics: Unacceptable scaremongering. Br Dent J 222, 744 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.430
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.430
This article is cited by
-
Orthodontics: A number of points
British Dental Journal (2017)