By Paul A. Henny, DDS, and Deborah E. Bush, MA 

The traditional rational economic model used in classical decision-making theory routinely fails to predict patient behavior because it fails to consider the psychology of decision-making and the inductive neuro process necessary to change one’s mind about what is best for oneself. 

Classic Decision Theory 

Classic Decision Theory (CDT) models a decision-making process that involves a fixed set of alternatives about which a person knows little. In response, they relate their limited knowledge to the situation at hand, use their beliefs and expectations associated with the options to project an outcome, and then use logic to make the final decision based on their goals. 

According to this theory, people primarily make decisions based on their desire to maximize gains and minimize losses, an objective. This deductive process is largely driven by a heuristic known as “scarcity bias.” However, anyone who has practiced dentistry for more than a day outside of a teaching institution knows that CDT fails to explain many of the decisions patients make when they’re confronted with a complex problem they don’t fully understand.  

Simple decisions such as “Should I get this filling replaced because it’s broken?” or “Should I allow Dr. Smith to help me make this tooth stop hurting?” are predictable. What’s much less predictable is whether a person will allow us to equilibrate their occlusion or leverage restorative dentistry to reestablish proper form, function, esthetics, and neuromuscular modulation. Why? Because these are complex issues that require an understanding of how the stomatognathic system works before the proposed solution makes sense and appears to be the logical best option to the patient. 

Neuroeconomics is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain human decision-making. By integrating psychology and neuroscience, this discipline can help us better understand how humans process alternatives to make choices and follow through on a plan of action. Neuroscience affirms that re-evaluating perspectives is a right-brain activity and an inductive process. 

The Dentist’s Challenge  

In practice, we often see patients making decisions we think are unwise for their long-term oral health. A person’s values and belief system influence their decisions. Not only may the person’s understanding and belief system be underdeveloped in relation to the value of properly planned, designed, and executed health-centered restorative dentistry, but their memories may be distorted. In this case, the person makes what we perceive to be unwise decisions because their memories do not align well with our understanding of the situation. They don’t know what we know.  

Helping Patients Think and Feel Differently Through Inductive Reasoning 

Reassessment, modification, or outright replacement of beliefs is a right-brain process known as inductive reasoning. The purpose of Co-Discovery is to take the patient through an inductive reasoning process. Oral health providers who understand how and why Co-Discovery works have experienced how it can change the trajectory of a person’s decision-making process. 

Our challenge is to create an optimal learning environment in which people can safely reevaluate their beliefs, values, and priorities. Being patient with patients and taking our time to guide them through the inductive process of Co-Discovery will comfortably provoke new thinking, new beliefs, and new emotions. Through the process, a great many patients come to realize that their historical perspective is not serving them well, and they decide to have that equilibration or restorative dentistry that will serve them best in the long-term.  

They may not choose treatment the first time it is recommended but will subsequently realize it is in their best interest. We just have to stay in conversation with them in Co-Discovery mode and guide them through the inductive process to arrive at their new goals.  

Long-term, this is healthier for dentists and their care teams as well. The conversations we have with patients change the trajectory of our dental practices. Better conversations result in better decisions, which in turn result in better outcomes. Better outcomes result in lower stress and a thriving practice that is much more fulfilling for dentists and care team members.   

By Mary Osborne, RDH 

Dr. Rachel Naomi Remin says, “Doctor, you may know what’s best for the disease the patient has but that’s not the same as knowing what’s best for the patient.”  

It’s difficult to let go of our own assumptions about what we’re supposed to do, how healthy this person should be based on our criteria, and what is the best path forward in every situation. Our clinical training leads us to believe that we’re supposed to know what’s best for our patient. 

There is another quote, from Dr. Albert Schweitzer, which has challenged my thinking about patient care for a long time:  

“Patients carry their own doctor inside.”  

I believe that every one of us has opinions, ideas, and knowledge about our own health. That is the doctor inside. Dr. Schweitzer said patients come to us knowing we have expertise, but “we are at our best when we give the physician who resides within each patient a chance to go to work.” When we do that, we help people become healthier. 

There is a place for our solutions. There is a place for our expertise to show up. But if we slow ourselves down a half step, we are often amazed at the answers patients come up with. They can be downright creative and elegant. The reason they are elegant is because they are their solutions, and patients are more likely to follow through with solutions they conceive. I’m not saying we shouldn’t guide them to understanding the advantages and disadvantages of their solutions and other possibilities that you we know are out there, but we should be open to allowing them to think about solutions and not prejudge their choices. 

For example, if a patient says she or he doesn’t have time to floss, I was trained to say, “Well, don’t you watch the evening news? You can do it while you’re watching the news. Right?” That’s about me having the solution. But now I sit back and say to the patient, “Well, it sounds like you’re very busy. Is there any time at all during the day when you’re sitting, and you feel that you could floss easily?” When I ask the question, they usually have a better answer than the nightly news. It’s a better solution because it’s their solution. They have bought into it at some level.  

In many cases, we see the “treatment” for a problem as we’re seeing the problem. That’s something that we take a great deal of pride in. But when we come together with our patient, sitting eye to eye, we can often come to a much more elegant treatment plan, one that moves us more comprehensively toward our goal of improved health. In between what is and what is possible, we encourage the patient to discover the level of health to which they aspire. We come to mutual agreement about going forward in a certain way to accomplish some things that are bigger and better than just solving “a problem.” 

By Mary Osborne, RDH 

How can we make recommendations for care without fully understanding what the patient aspires to? The patient’s goals are the context or should be the context for recommendations that we are going to make as their partner in health. Too often, context is the missing piece in our conversations with patients.  

I’ve heard that Dr. Bob Barkley would say to his patients, “You know, Mrs. Jones, if I had taken X-rays of you every six months since you were born, we would have 80 sets of x-rays. And if I stacked them one on top of another and then thumbed through them, I would have a movie of the health of your mouth for the last 40 years. We would see how your teeth changed from health to the degree of breakdown we see today. We can’t do anything now to change that movie. That movie has already been made. But, if you like, you and I can work together to create the movie for the next 40 years. Is that something you’d like to do?” 

If we get agreement from the patient, “Yes, I’d like to work together with you to plan for the next 40 years,” that’s not a specific goal, but it begins to create a context for our recommendations. Instead of the provider setting the expectations of the patient, it becomes more of a mutual agreement to long-term planning, so that there’s a buy-in by both parties in the relationship. That’s moving toward a partnership.  

When we set a general mutual goal during the preclinical consults, it fits in well with our not knowing what we will uncover during the clinical piece of the appointment. Dentists and hygienists can be direct about it, and I think there is value in saying, “I’d like to come to a mutual agreement that we work together to understand what is going on in your mouth, and based on the circumstances we find, come up with the best solutions for you. Is that something you would like to do?” 

We can set expectations by saying, “As we go through this process, I will be asking for your input. We’ll take it slow and be thorough. We’ll discuss what you and I discover, and together we can think through the next steps you may want to take. How does that sound to you?” 

I think it is essential to this process to invite the patient to be in shared control by asking, “Would you like to proceed with the clinical examination? Do you have any questions for me before we begin?” 

When we come to the conversation as fellow travelers with the attitude that “the two of us can work together,” we open ourselves to working toward mutual agreement about what it’s going to take for this particular person to achieve the level of health to which they aspire. Starting as partners with the goal of improved health is a low-stress way of being in a relationship that is comfortable for both parties. 

By Mary Osborne, RDH 

How much time do you schedule for a new patient, non-emergency visit? Is your priority efficiency or effectiveness? Is your goal to gather as much clinical data as possible, or is it to begin to build a relationship of mutual trust? Both are possible if you see the new patient visit as more of a process than an event.   

Too often new patients are rushed through an assembly line: brief conversation, clinical exam, diagnostic records, and treatment presentation! Is that really the best way to help people make choices about their health?  

There is no one right way to schedule a new patient. Different practices are successful with different models based on the values of the practice, practice growth, and the personality and skills of doctors and team members. The most important determinant of success is our ability to meet each patient where they are and join them on a journey to health. I am not suggesting we should be without practice standards of care.  We have a responsibility to decide what we need before beginning treatment. Our challenge is to guide patients to understanding why we need what we need, and why that is relevant to their unique situation.   

We may anticipate that patients will resist this type of experience, but if we make it truly about the patient and are flexible, I have found that patients are more than willing to participate in an individualized process that best meets their temperament and circumstances. 

I remember seeing a new patient that I was told was a “very busy attorney” because his secretary said so when she made the appointment and his wife said so when she confirmed the appointment. I anticipated that he would be a driver and prepared to efficiently move him through his appointment.  

As I explored his health history with him he expanded on the specific answers to questions. Soon, he was leading the conversation. When I remarked that I wanted to make sure we were making good use of his time. He said, “Mary, what’s this about time?” I replied that I knew he was very busy. He said, “Mary, this is about me. I have time for me.” 

His statement has stayed with me because I realized that if the conversation had been about me going through my check list and not listening to him, it would not have been a worthwhile experience for him. It also wouldn’t have been a worthwhile experience for me. 

I have learned that when the patient feels in control of the process they are willing to give that time to themselves. A lot of aha moments occur as they learn about themselves while speaking. When patients feel like they are on an assembly line being moved through our system, they have every right to be resistant.  

Empowering patients to lead the process is both an attitude and a learnable skill. When we can lose ourselves in the moment, really listen, really encourage, and really care about the patient’s thoughts and feelings, it is easy to make connections to the next step we recommend.  It is my experience that I can more quickly become a trusted health advisor when I intentionally share control with my patient. 

Most patients are willing to invest more time in the process when they see the connection between their needs and what we recommend.  These are typically patients who have or have had complex health issues and are seeking to improve and retain health. They perceive the value of the extended process and how much value you place on spending in-depth time with them.  

The entire team’s communication can deliver the message that everyone in the practice is keenly interested in them, and their appointment is uniquely planned to meet their needs.  

What has been your experience? Are you open to scheduling more time for conversations that typically garner trust and appreciation earlier in the relationship? 

By Daren Becker, DMD 

A 16-year-old girl presented with the worst case of ectodermal dysplasia I had ever seen.. She was missing all of her lower teeth except for her 12-year molars. She presented with a lower denture (made by a previous dentist) on two temporary implants in the canine position.  She had only a few maxillary teeth that were malformed; some of these were still her primary teeth.  The appearance of her smile made her look like she was a 9 year old child. 

She was embarrassed by her smile and realized she would need implants and restorative dentistry down the road. At the time, she was too young. Our hearts went out to her. 

Another dentist had recommended direct bonding, which certainly could have worked, but I thought that we could get a better aesthetic result for her with significantly less time in the chair. So, we captured preclinical digital impression scans with our iTero scanner and along with Matt Roberts at CMR Dental Lab in Idaho, we designed a digital wax-up for an improved occlusion and smile. From there, we had milled PMMA (Polymethyl Methacrylate) overlays created that we direct bonded onto the existing dentition as a long-term temporary solution. We did not need to prep any teeth, and we quickly gave her a broad beautiful smile that looked natural and age appropriate. 

She was in tears. We were in tears. Her mom and sister were in tears. It was the best day ever! 

Soon after, she got a part as an extra in a series filmed here in Georgia, and is thinking about a career in acting. Seeing her life change with simple, comfortable clinical procedures has been priceless. 

By Clayton Davis, DDS 

About 15 years ago, my wife and I were on a trip to New York City. My laboratory had told me about two dentists there who practiced together and did an amazing amount of cosmetic and restorative dentistry. Their best month was about six or seven times more than my best month, so I was curious. I knew they had studied with some of the same mentors I had. They had gone to Pankey and Dawson. They have a a comprehensive approach. While I was in New York, one morning I told my wife I was going to visit their Manhattan office and see what I could learn. 

Their office had reasonable furnishings (nothing fancy) and a reasonable level of equipment. It was tidy with nice staff. It seemed similar to what I have in my office. I sat down with the dentist who was there that day, and he shared with me what they do in their practice. They do a fair amount of marketing in health and beauty magazines that are circulated in the New York City area but otherwise it all sounded very familiar to my practice.  

A few moments later, there was a knock at the door. It was the hygienist, and she said, “Doctor, ready when you get a chance for your examination. Mr. Anderson is in today, you may not recall, but he had said that he wanted to get his veneers done after his daughter graduated from college. That was a couple years ago when he said that, and his daughter is graduating in June, so it’s time to bring that up again. I mentioned it to him today, and he’s scheduled to start that in July. So, when you want to come on in and talk to him about it, that would be great.” 

She walked away, and I looked at the dentist. I said, “What just happened? The hygienist handled everything about moving that patient forward for treatment. I can’t get mine to do that. As a matter of fact, we’ve had conversations, and they don’t seem to feel comfortable doing that.” 

He said, “I don’t know. We talked to them about it, and they’re tremendous about it. They really help our practice move patients into treatment.” 

I went home wondering how I could move my hygienists in the same direction, and an old business concept came back to me. If you want to improve something, you need to come up with a way to measure it. So, I came up with a form for logging what I call “Hygiene Points” and presented it to my hygienists. We talked about how we want to improve our ability to move patients forward with their treatment through the hygiene department. I simply asked them to score themselves on how it went at each appointment in talking to patients about any kind of treatment that came up. 

As each patient passes through hygiene, they receive a score. The lowest score, a score of 1, is for when I come into the operatory, talk to the hygiene patient, bring up some previously recommended treatment, and they go ahead and schedule it. A score of 2 is for when the hygienist finds a problem like a cracked tooth and says that it needs to be monitored. A score of 3 is for when I’m in hygiene and diagnose something new and get the patient to commit to schedule treatment. A score of 4 is for when the hygienist gets previously recommended treatment scheduled at the front desk without my involvement. A score of 5 is for when the hygienist takes an intraoral picture and points out a problem to me and I get a commitment to schedule. In other words, they say, “Let’s take a picture of this. I want Dr. Davis’s opinion on it when he comes in the room.” And then because the hygienist was concerned and I confirm in front of the patient that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, the patient schedules treatment. The collaboration and communication go so well, this is worth 5 points. And then the ultimate score is 6 for when the hygienist gets a commitment to schedule treatment for an obvious problem before I come in to confirm the diagnosis.  

The first couple of months that we used this scoring, we recorded a baseline monthly total.  After that, the competitive instincts of the hygienists kicked in and they wanted to improve their total score each month. I did not give them a reward incentive, and over two years, more production was coming out of hygiene. The old saw “You can improve what you measure” has certainly increased restorative collaboration and revenue in our practice, and the pursuit of higher Hygiene Points has been fun. 

By Kelley Brummett, DMD 

A situation occurred in my office when I was working with a patient who needed a 30-year-old PFM crown replaced on #8. I was struggling with the shade because the adjacent teeth were an in between color. What I did was take a shade photo of the brightest one, which was B1, and then I took a shade photo with A1–because those were the two shades that matched the best. They weren’t what we were looking for. So, I made a provisional out of the A1 shade and a a provisional out of the B1 shade. I took the extra time to place both of them onto the tooth and let the patient look with me and help me decide. The patient chose the A1 shade. 

After I placed the A1 provisional, we sent  photos to my lab. These photos included the first shade photos of B1 and A1 alongside the tooth, photos of the B1 and A1 provisionals, and photos of the provisional I placed on the tooth from various aesthetic views. I then talked to the lab over the phone while we viewed the photos together so they could create the right in-between shade.  

At the end of the process, my patient expressed gratitude for taking the extra steps and meeting her expectations for a beautifully blended smile. 

By Lee Ann Brady, DMD 

When you are managing the care of an older patient, I encourage you to take time to look up their medications and the medication you are considering prescribing, even something as simple as antibiotics or pain medication. 

A resource I use when I am writing prescriptions and also managing existing pharmaceuticals that my older patients are taking is the Beers Criteria published by the American Geriatric Society (AGS). The AGS Beers Criteria® lists the Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) that are typically best avoided by older adults in most circumstances or under specific diseases or conditions.  

Some listed PIMs should not be written for people over age 65 and some are okay with caution or in moderation. There is a long list of medications people can take until they are ages 65 to 70 without a problem. After that age, there are side effects. 

Some of the medications cause adverse reactions on their own or in interaction with other medications. Some of these PIMs are common over-the-counter antihistamines. 

By Laura S. Harkin, DMD  

My dad and I were enjoying our favorite lunch spot years ago when he turned to me and said, “Laura, isn’t it amazing? There’s an incredible sense of trust that our patients have in us. Sometimes, we give our best recommendation for treatment, and it is declined as if it weren’t important or a priority. I’ve recognized that, more often than not, our patients eventually choose to move forward, proving that it was more a matter of timing and circumstance than lack of value.” 

Trust is the cornerstone of our practice. It was transferred from patients to Grandpa to Dad and to me. I do believe that every morsel is earned through guidance, thoughtfulness, and skill. Trust is an entity that requires constant nurturing. In private practice, one should recognize that a doctor’s trust in their patient is equally as important as a patient’s trust in their provider. With synergy there’s the opportunity for optimal health. Even as a child, I had a very clear understanding of the care my dad had for his patients. This feeling is innate and deeply imbedded in me. I imagine that he felt the same.  

I don’t consider myself “a writer,” but I’ve always enjoyed the art of letter writing. I grew up writing frequently to my grandparents and friends and always loved picking out stationary that reflected my personality. Recently, I reread the letters that my grandfather typed on his old typewriter and my oldest brother scribbled on his Grateful Dead CD inserts – crafted just for me. It seems fitting then that I enjoy writing personalized letters to my patients. In fact, I’m pretty sure I salvaged my mental health during COVID by writing “updates” to my patients during months of closure. I digress. 

The letters that I write to my patients are most often in reference to comprehensive treatment. They provide a bird’s eye glimpse of our most recent findings, diagnoses, and treatment recommendations. My older patients, especially, appreciate my thoroughness, organization, and systematic approach to recommended treatment. These letters certainly aren’t handwritten, but the hard copy renders a sense of care that’s transferred from my hands to theirs. We must remember that individuals comprehend and retain information differently. The one-on-one, verbal, treatment consultation can become lost in the shuffle of everyday. Add dental language and complicated procedures to the mix, and that’s simply a recipe for confusion.  

Whenever I present complex treatment to a patient, I write a letter in everyday language to support our conversation. It’s stored in their digital chart as part of their dental record. In my first paragraph, I state my patient’s chief complaint. A summary of clinical findings followed by bullet point. Next, I provide my best treatment recommendation, an appointment sequence, and the financial investment. Photographs are also a helpful insert to aid in explanation for family members who were unable to attend the consultation. I think there’s value in a tangible letter taken home to revisit.  

Treatment letters are also an irreplaceable resource for my team. When a patient calls to schedule treatment previously presented, my stored letter immediately becomes a reference for scheduling appointments, including time allotments and space in-between subsequent visits. In my office, we offer a courtesy for treatment paid in full. This amount is figured in the financial investment portion of my letter so that conversations regarding immediate payment or a payment plan can easily flow. Should a case not be accepted prior to a routine recare visit, this letter serves as an excellent reminder during team huddle. It’s inefficient to page through multiple chart notes and software-driven plans with no explanation of the diagnoses which caused a need for restoration in the first place.  

In my first few years of practice, it was hard for me to accept that I needed to view this document as fluid with a potential need for multiple modifications to suit my patient’s desires and limitations. For example, financial concerns often lead to the need for phased treatment or a compromise from the ideal. I’m committed to openly discussing what may occur if no treatment is rendered or if a compromised approach is chosen. Likewise, I believe in the importance of presenting the financial component of extensive treatment myself. As the dentist and business owner, I must “own” the fee that I’ve carefully determined to reflect indirect and direct time, the skill level and support to be provided by my team, the technical excellence of my laboratory technicians, and my own knowledge. The fee that I present is steadfast, barring an unanticipated need such as root canal therapy. Should there be a need for additional chair-time or visits, it’s included in the quoted fee.  

Finally, my letters include my expectations for post-treatment maintenance. For example, if we are to complete a hybrid case in conjunction with a surgeon, I’m careful to share the importance of periodontal health and frequent maintenance visits to prevent peri-implantitis. In patients who have pre-existing medical conditions that when uncontrolled can be contradictory, I stress the importance of regular monitoring. Ultimately, I strive to empower my patients to choose and achieve oral health, Undoubtedly, oral health positively impacts overall health. My personal letters are a distinguishing trait of my practice that convey the level of care to be carried from presentation through treatment and in maintenance. Consider the value in this extra step! 

By Lee Ann Brady, DMD 

A patient chipped a tooth on her lower hybrid denture and loosened an implant screw. The denture had been placed 18 years ago, so she had an old titanium bar with denture teeth and pink acrylic. That day, I put the screw back in and smoothed out where the tooth was chipped. During this visit we had a great conversation about the future of her hybrid denture. 

I have had a similar conversation with several patients in recent months. They have the original, traditional bar retained hybrid denture that is nearing the end of its lifespan. And so, what are the options? 

1. If the bar is in great shape, new denture teeth and a new denture base can be milled and placed over the existing titanium bar. 

1. Alternatively, we can get rid of the bar and go to something that is all zirconia. 

If there is a preference for the first option, the first requirement is to make sure the titanium bar is in good condition. After 18 years, we would take it off and have the laboratory examine it under microscopy.  

If converting to all-zirconia and the patient has had upper and lower dentures, we must consider if one arch can be converted without converting the second arch. A zirconia arch is going to wear an opposing original denture fast if there is parafunction, and the zirconia arch is likely to fracture the opposing original prosthetic teeth. 

We have options today we can think about with our patients, but many have in their minds that when they got their hybrid dentures years ago, the dentures would last. All the time, energy, and dollars to freshen up or replace their denture is a big deal to them. Shifting their mindset from “I thought I was done investing in dentistry” to “My denture is at the end of its lifespan” is a big hurdle. So, the earlier we can start those conversations before they need to invest, the easier they can transition their minds to accept care with grace when the time comes. 

When your bar retained hybrid denture patients visit for perio maintenance and your exams, inform them of the lifespan of their denture is at most 20 years and set expectations for discussing the best available options at some point in the future.