English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Oral diseases such as dental caries (DC) and periodontitis are widely prevalent, and existing approaches to managing these conditions have only a limited effect. Accordingly, there is growing interest in the development of novel biological interventions (including, among others, CRISPR-Cas9) that might, in the future, be used to prevent the development of or cure these conditions. However, in addition to familiar concerns about using biological interventions in children who cannot provide valid consent, it is not clear whether the provision of these interventions would fall within the proper domain of dentistry. In this opinion paper, we defend the view that the provision of reasonably safe and effective novel biological interventions aimed at preventing DC and periodontitis should be understood to fall within the proper domain of dentistry. To do so, we first argue that their use would be consistent with existing practice in dentistry. We then argue that: i) they may substantially increase the recipient's wellbeing and future autonomy; and ii) that their use could constitute a form of indirect preventative medicine by addressing a threat to systemic health.

Beyond oral hygiene, are capacity-altering, biologically based interventions within the moral domain of dentistry?