Do dentists know what they're doing?

A first-person narrator tracks decades of dental encounters, from teenage tooth reshaping that shortened teeth and worsened jaw impingement, to splints and night guards whose benefits and harms are disputed, to an alarmist 22-year-old diagnosis of "twelve cavities" later downplayed by a second dentist as radiographic shadows that would not progress into cavities. The vignettes contrast plush, spa-like offices and pitch-perfect staff with dingy, blunt clinics, and show how tone, urgency and sales tactics - "if you were my son," discounts for five-star reviews, hurry-to-schedule - shape consent. X-rays, impressions and marginal findings recur as ambiguous evidence interpreted differently by clinicians, with procedures presented as urgent fixes.

The central claim is that dentistry mixes genuine technical necessity with subjective judgment and financial incentives, producing wide variation in diagnosis and treatment and occasional harm from unnecessary interventions. Concrete specifics include a proposed $100-150k orthognathic reconstruction described as "the only way," contrasted with a neighborhood orthodontist who called it excessive; a splint/night-guard debate; and cases where drilling would be premature. The account argues patients face uncertain signals, conflicting expert opinions and pressure to act, making second opinions and skepticism essential.