Sir, I read with sadness the two letters (BDJ 2005; 199: 485) which appeared to ridicule the HealOzone and the review of Ozone — The revolution in dentistry. I am relieved by, and fully support, the others who have also taken the opportunity to write to you with their feelings about these two letters.

The point seems to have been sadly missed that here is a twenty-first century treatment that is alien to 'drill n' fill' — something all dentists were taught historically as the only way to control and eradicate the infective process of dental decay. The dental profession now has the ability to detect decay long before cavitation has started, has an updated Clinical Severity Index to help guide them to the treatment of the lesion1 and the HealOzone to reverse these early lesions rapidly and predictably2 without the need for injections and drilling.3 Patients prefer this 'holistic' approach to their dental care.4,5 The entry of a patient into the cycle of drill and fill is irreversible. Once a hole is drilled into a tooth, the patient will always have it, and no matter how good a clinician each dentist perceives themselves to be, any restorative material will fail at some time.

The implications of this new technology are staggering. Not only is there clear financial gain to the health of the nation,6 there is a valid alternative to 'drill n' fill', and the many thousands of HealOzone users throughout the world cannot be wrong. Patients in these practices do not enter into the destructive cycle — and if a degree of preparation has to be carried out, then minimal tissue is destroyed, preserving the inherent tooth strength.7

In order to test opinion on ozone therapy among a group of 15 colleagues here in South Africa, I contacted them informally earlier this year. All of the 15 feel the clinical use of the HealOzone to treat early caries is superior to conventional preventive methods. They all found that, based on their recall results in general practice, ozone and sealing was superior to conventional injecting, drilling and filling to manage occlusal caries with infected dentine extending up to 1 mm in depth. One hundred per cent of these dentists stated that ozone was superior to the conventional treatment of early root caries.

In fact, for 11 out of the 12 main uses of ozone in practice, there was at least 93% agreement that the HealOzone was superior to conventional therapies. Lastly, not a single one of these dentists wanted to return to pre-HealOzone dental care, and all believed that this technology should be taught at dental schools around the world.

These data are part of a worldwide clinical audit currently in progress and while I realise that this does not represent a scientifically robust survey, surely one has to accept that there is something beneficial going on if such a number of respected, honest, clinically experienced colleagues are able to respond in such positive ways? If there really was nothing beneficial happening why would they persist? These dentists are working in the real world and have embraced change; they and their patients see the numerous benefits of this therapy compared to the conventional amputational therapies.