Rethinking Dental Interventions: Prevention, Perception, and Behaviour

In healthcare — and dentistry in particular — we often lean towards intervention. The more complex the procedure, the higher the fee. And ideally, a specialist delivers it, with a better outcome... and a bigger cost.
But what about simpler, less invasive, lower-cost alternatives that buy time and preserve options?
During lockdown, we adopted the AAA approach — Antibiotics, Analgesics, and Advice. It was effective in the short term. But was it the right solution?
In many cases, antibiotics were prescribed either because they were clinically needed or simply to satisfy patient expectations in some cases as“They won’t do any harm”.
No meaningful research has followed up on those patients. How many later returned for proper treatment — root canals, extractions, or otherwise? It's an important question, and one that deserves public attention.
Root canal therapy, even in expert hands, doesn’t guarantee success. Just like with pericoronitis (wisdom tooth swelling), where first-line treatment is antibiotics and extraction only if it recurs within 18 months — could this approach apply to other dental conditions? Especially in children, where the alternative is referral for general anaesthetic — now costing the NHS nearly £2,000 per visit.
These are uncomfortable but necessary questions.
This post was prompted by the excellent Nudge podcast by Phil Agnew, which reminded me: studies show red tablets are perceived as more effective than blue ones. Does this apply to placebos too?
Let’s not forget — the person who arguably did the most to improve oral health wasn’t a dentist or doctor, but Claude Hopkins, an advertiser who understood human behaviour.
If we truly want to improve the nation’s health, we may need more behavioural scientists working alongside clinicians. In reality, we need both.
For more ideas goto nudgepodcast.com
​