Film versus the "Faculty" : Rated R in your cinema

[Ronnie Sim]

Douglas, you definitely left "est" out in the Latin version.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PF. vd. Stelt" <p.vdstelt at acta.nl>
To: <ORADLIST at listserv.ucla.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Film versus the "Faculty" : Rated R in your cinema


Douglas,

I totally agree with your exposé and have only ne little correction: change
"desperadum" into "desperandum" (one but last sentence) ...

Best regards,
Paul
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu Nov 15 02:29:00 2001,
"Douglas Benn" <benn at DENTAL.UFL.EDU> wrote:
>We are using F speed at Univ Florida. It is subjectively very good.
>
>The "faculty" recently wanted to change back to D speed as we had a large
>number of failures with the Boards and the knives were out to find a
culprit.
>However, unbeknown to the faculty it was D speed film that was used for the
>Boards and so film type could not be blamed.
>
>Never a body to give up easily the "faculty" turned to "the lesions seem to
>be deeper than we would have seen with D speed Film."
>
>I accepted the challenge and gave a tutorial last week to the Chairs. I
>concentrated on:
>1. Shadows are related to relative mass loss of Ca++ and not the presence
of
>softened tooth found with a bur. Partial remineralization of a lesion can
>result in comparatively little net loss of tissue preventing a lucency
being
>formed. (No, I can't give you a reference to this but fortunately they
don't
>read papers any way).
>2. The assumption that D speed will reveal a lesion when E or F will not is
>just that, an assumption. Here I am on stronger grounds since when
challenged
>2 years ago by a "faculty" member to go back to D speed because they could
>see clinically an interproximal lesion on #8 but nothing on the film, I
asked
>the patient if they would agree to an unecessary film to demonstrate a
>scientific point. They agreed and the D speed film showed nothing at all.
The
>"faculty" member visibly shrank.
>
>By now the Chairs were reeling and I delivered the "Coup de Gras".
>
>3. If you view the films in the normal manner (against a 1,000 watt
>flourescent strip hanging from the ceiling or frequently in the elevator)
>with a bright unmasked background, your contrast sensitivity diminishes
>greatly and even if the faint shadows are there, you will not be able to
see
>them[Stu - I could not find the information in your latest book - What have
>you done with this?].
>
>The Chairs were now looking positively green (not with envy). The diet of
>scientific facts, logic, and a rational approach to solving a problem was
not
>something they are used to encountering in dental schools.
>
>So in summary I recommend "Nil desparadum carborundum" loosley translated
as
>"Don't let the b........ grind you down."
>
>Go down fighting lads and lassies!
>
>Douglas Benn
>
>
>
>
>>>> nlfred at HOME.COM 11/14/01 19:55 PM >>>
>All,
>
>If we could have a little help with a few questions please:
>
>Who is using F-speed film at their institution?
>What is your experience?  Good?  Problems?
>Do you know of any resistance by examining boards.  It is my
>understanding that one/some did not like E-speed images.
>
>We had an unfortunate experience here with E-speed film some years ago
>that I would not like to repeat.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Neil L. Frederiksen
>Baylor College of Dentistry/TAMUSHSC
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - End of Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - -