How often do we read, or hear, that something is ‘scientifically proven’? These words have become a powerful marketing tool for promoting a myriad of everyday items such as healthcare, cosmetic and beauty products. One of the problems, however, is that adverts that claim a product is ‘scientifically proven’ often do so without supporting these claims with reliable, third party validated evidence.
Using science as a foundation for claiming a product or treatment will give a ‘guaranteed result’ is a tactic sometimes employed to justify credibility or to make rival products look less effective. However, science can rarely, if ever, ‘prove’ anything with 100 per cent certainty and such claims must be able to hold up to true scientific rigour. Reproducibility is central to scientific research, given that different scientists often have various ways of interpreting the outcome of tests and experiments resulting in widely differing conclusions. To gain consensus across the scientific community requires clear testing methodology which can be reproduced in different environments and yet give the same results. Some claims of ‘scientifically proven’ products rest on a single piece of research of questionable merit; so trying to determine whether or not to trust such a claim should be treated with some degree of caution.
All qualified dentists are first and foremost scientists, and are in a better position than most to understand and question the reliability of scientific claims about products. It therefore makes sense for all dental professionals to consider the reputation of the manufacturers themselves and to question and research independently in order to establish if a product has been through rigorous testing, peer-review or independent third party validation to support the claims made for it.
The question of reliability has become a topic that has received extensive coverage in recent months. A report from the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body responsible for ensuring all dental equipment meets UK safety standards, confirmed it had seized more than 12,000 pieces of illegal dental equipment in the UK over a sixmonth period. Products ranged from poorly made counterfeit dentists’ drills to hand-held X-ray machines with faulty wiring, with some even bearing what appeared to be the official ‘CE’ European safety marking. With the growth of ‘grey market’ imports and the internet as a source of highly ‘credible’ imitations, it’s often difficult for dentists to know whether they are buying a proven product from a legitimate source.
But reliability and efficacy is not just a question for equipment, the efficacy of consumable products and materials also needs to be assured. This is also an area in which many manufacturers undertake research and make scientific claims based on the results. For those responsible for infection control within a dental practice, it is vital that they consider the truth and justification of the claims being made for products to ensure that their efficacy can be substantiated.
Research into the background and reputation of the manufacturing company itself is a valuable consideration, and can give a good indication into how scientifically proven and compliant their products actually are. Long established companies are likely to have a dedicated R&D team, including qualified chemists and microbiologists; this demonstrates they have a real commitment to developing ‘best in class’ surfactant and disinfectant products. Check that the products you are using have all been subjected to independent third party testing to industry recognised and approved British and European standards and are CE marked where appropriate, as well as complying to any relevant guidelines stated in HTM 01-05.
In the world of advertising there is often a temptation to tread a fine line between promoting the truth about a product and making false claims that a product is ‘scientifically proven’ and capable of producing ‘guaranteed’ results. It can be extremely costly for companies that cross this line in lawsuits, settlements and loss of reputation if their scientific claims fall foul of regulatory standards and are subsequently found to be misleading or blatantly untrue.
So when it comes to sorting the wood from the trees, dental professionals need to take a considered look at all the information when making important product or equipment choices. I would recommend you are sceptical about scientific claims unless they are supported by published evidence and research or supported by independent third party verification. There are an increasing number of unsubstantiated claims being made about products and if the profession does not ask the right questions, they are leaving themselves open to being misled.
All disinfectant products that are used on medical device such as dental chairs and lighting should bear a CE mark along with a four digit number denoting a notified body acting on behalf of the MHRA or other ‘competent authority’. The presence of a CE mark on a disinfectant indicates that the evidence supporting its performance claims and product safety has been scrutinised by an expert body and found to be sufficient to ensure compliance. Products without a valid CE mark must not be used on medical devices.
Make sure that any company you deal with can provide the correct scientific evidence to support its claims and that they can supply adequate information for you to comply with local guidelines. To ensure safety, compliance and the
protection of you, your team, and most importantly, your patients, it is incumbent on you to take some time to consider whether the products you are using in practice have sufficient scientific credibility.