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 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 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 David R. Rice, DDS 

I’m guessing your practice is a whole lot like mine. People can be challenging. Patients are people. Ergo, yes, patients often bring us challenges. With that and 29 years into dentistry, there are a few challenges I’m willing to admit and, like you, work to overcome.  

Our great patients get great dentistry.
Our challenging patients get our best effort.
Our job is to understand who each is, what each wants,
and how we do our best to deliver it. 

As you and I learn the best techniques and technology, we have to understand that many of our patients see the world differently. They see it differently than each other, and they see it differently than we do. At first glance, yes, this is an obstacle. But for those of us willing to spend time focusing on their views, this is a massive opportunity.  

About 20 years ago, the treatment planning and presentation mantra our team developed was: Pizza by the slice or the whole pie? 

 A talented and curious team with character, plus a well-defined process,
always equals complete care and profitable production. 

 Here are the four keys: 

1. Understanding who of our patients wants complete care—the whole pie right now. 

1. Knowing who of our patients isn’t ready for the whole pie today and needs us to serve that complete care one prioritized slice at a time. 

1. Recognizing that some patients love pepperoni, some love veggies, some are all NY and thin crust, some love that Chicago deep dish, and so on. 

1. Delivering each individual patient’s pizza the way they want it without yielding on our quality. 

All our patients come with a story. Some are ready for a whole pie. They want complete care and they want it now. Other patients are overwhelmed by the whole pie. Right or wrong, some past experience makes their yes to the complete care we know they need challenging. We can push them, or we can appreciate where they are and work with them one slice at a time. 

I’m not proposing we compromise our care. I’m offering us all an opportunity to elevate it. Whether you’re scanning and milling, 3D printing, injection molding, direct bonding, or prepping and temping long-term, the materials and technology we have at our fingertips today afford us an incredible ability to segment care. 

Complete-care case acceptance at 90%+ is a reality when we add great communication skills to the clinical skills we’ve worked so diligently to achieve. Today, I challenge you to assess, calibrate, and elevate your ability to deliver pizza by the slice…or the whole pie. 

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.  

By David R. Rice, DDS 

I travel a lot for speaking engagements and often ride to and from the airport using Uber. As I make small talk with the drivers, inevitably they ask what I do for a living. One day, as I shared that I was a dentist, the driver said, “I’m finally straightening my teeth with those aligners.”  

I thought, “Okay, he’s either seeing a dentist or he’s doing this thing on his own.” Either assumption would’ve potentially painted me into a corner, so instead of assuming, I asked a simple, yet leading question: “Good for you. Is your dentist happy with the progress?” 

Leading questions like that help us walk a patient down the path we want. His response was, “Wait a second, this should be done with a dentist?” 

With one question, I got to the heart of the matter. From there, I responded and asked a series of simple (and again leading) questions: “Yes, seeing a dentist helps to know if you are a good candidate to move your teeth at all. How is the health of your mouth? Are your gums healthy? Do you have any cavities?” 

Now he was thinking, “Wow, not only should I be going to the dentist but there are things that could go wrong.” 

I asked him one more simple set of questions: “Would you like to know basic things that could go wrong? Or would you like to know what might really go wrong and harm you?” He, of course, wanted to know what could harm him. 

Simple, leading questions get to the point. So, when restoring a patient, I think about the simplest questions to ask to understand what the patient understands, what the patient really wants, and why. In short, I want to know what matters most to them and connect that to the dentistry I know they need. As an example, I might ask, “Do you want to replicate mother nature when we restore that tooth, or do you want to improve upon mother nature? Would you like to discuss preventing future problems that will save you time and money or just focus on today’s problems?” 

These leading, simple questions prompt a response that enables me to determine if the patient wants just a slice of pizza—say a crown, the patient wants the whole pie—an optimal smile, or the patient wants something in between. Based on that input, I know how to best have a great conversation with the patient—a conversation the patient will appreciate and through which I can earn more trust.  

Paul Henny DDS

I wrote about this topic last October in The Never-Ending Interview and wanted to revisit it to connect the timeless teachings with my most recent thoughts. Bear with me as I recount some of the history from that previous article. 

Dr. F. Harold Wirth had a very successful restorative practice in downtown New Orleans but he always felt that something was missing until he met Dr. L.D. Pankey and was influenced by his teachings. Dr. Wirth became a missionary for Dr. Pankey’s philosophy of dentistry and life, and he gave Dr. Pankey most of the credit for developing a deeper understanding of people, both physically and emotionally.  

One of Dr. Wirth’s key messages from the podium was that dentists are always presenting the case, even from the beginning of their first encounter with the patient. Another key message was that the patient’s feelings matter in accepting care and the patient interview should be forever ongoing. 

He said, “Every time the patient comes in, you’re doing a presentation. As a matter of fact, I think the interview is forever ongoing. It might only be one word, but every time the patient comes into your office, you should be interviewing them.” 

He said, “Ask questions that have to do with how the person feels. A case history is exploring what happened. An interview is about how they feel! You need to understand the difference!” 

We might ask, “Since I last saw you, have you noticed any changes in your oral health? How do you feel about these changes?” We might ask, “How do you feel about the appearance of your teeth?” or “How do you feel about the restorations we did?” We might ask, “At your last visit, you talked about the possibility of doing ortho; how do you feel about that now?” We might ask, “You mentioned last visit that you weren’t looking forward to Thanksgiving because it was difficult to eat all your favorite foods. Would you feel good about revisiting the possibility of replacing your denture with something more stable?”  

Do you feel better after a long conversation with someone who knows you well on the emotional level? I know I do. Over time, those kinds of conversations cause us to feel more positive and hopeful. They occur when a person gifts us their full attention while making no attempt to judge. And because we experience no judgment, we share more feelings, which leads us into an even deeper level of self-understanding. 

Doctor-patient conversations that tap into how a patient is feeling on an emotional level enable patients to grow in trust and to become more open to the possibilities we offer.  

In her recent blog series, Mary Osborne has encouraged us to journey toward health with our patients as fellow travelers because we all have health issues we hope to resolve. We can make connections over shared feelings and hopes. These connections bond us so we can pursue a mutual, positive goal with our patient.  

What I love and sticks with me from Mary’s blog is that the medical health review during each preclinical interview is an ideal time to check-in about feelings regarding health in general. So, if you and your team are not doing that now, you might want to add a question about the patient’s feelings about their current health. It’s ideal if the doctor or hygienist  asks the question. It may be as simple as “How do you feel about your overall health?” Wait for the patient to think and speak.  

One of my favorite quotes is this: 

Any kind of gesture that pulls another living soul out of despair is indistinguishable from magic. – Michael Xavier, Author 

The medical history review is a prime opportunity to demonstrate we care. Expanding our preclinical interview to routinely ask one or more questions that surface feelings related to health will give us opportunities to touch hearts on a deeper level. This will engender greater trust so patients more readily accept us as partners in their health.  

By Mary Osborne, RDH 

There was a time when I thought “partnering in health” was just about getting people to take better care of their teeth. 

Many years ago, I had a patient who was excellent with her home care, but she showed up periodically with an acute periodontal infection. We asked about stress and her overall health, but she was not aware of any issues. We would treat the infection and she would be fine for a sometime. We knew she worked for National Public Radio, and one day we made the connection that her infections showed up concurrent with NPR’s fund-raising drives. That shared realization allowed us to help her see that her stress was affecting her dental health and her overall health. She was open to conversations about lifestyle changes that would help her be healthier. My relationship with her influenced my thinking and my ability to connect with my patients from a perspective of Whole-health Dentistry. I came to understand that I had been missing opportunities to influence the way people think and feel about health. I knew that I wanted my patients to see me as “a partner in health.” 

Unfortunately, most of our patients come to us with the perspective that we are fixers of teeth, not partners in health. 

In the culture today people are bombarded with information about what is healthy. From friends and families, social and news media, and a wide variety of health care practitioners, everybody expresses opinions on how they are supposed to take care of themselves. Why, then, are we surprised when our patients don’t know whom to trust? Why are we surprised when they shrug their shoulders or appear confused? It’s not always a case of conflicting facts but a case of various perspectives that people don’t know how to navigate. 

Think about where you place your trust. How do you decide whom to trust about decisions—whether it’s about your health, or about your finances, or about how you raise your children? When I ask myself that question, two criteria surface. They need to know their subject and to know me. I want that person to know what it is they’re talking about. I want them to be well informed. I also want someone who knows me, who understands my values. I want that person to have a sense of who I am and what is important to me. 

As we get to know our patients over the years, most of them come to see us as trusted advisors when it comes to their dental health—but fewer see us as trusted advisors when it comes to their general health. If we jump too quickly to making recommendations about their overall health, we are more likely to meet resistance. If we want to cross the bridge into influencing our patients’ overall health and wellbeing, I believe we need an invitation to cross that bridge.   

The Missing Piece in our quest to influence the overall health of our patients is the failure to invite patients to share their perspectives on health. Beginning a conversation with a new patient with the question, “What can you tell me about your health in general?” is an invitation for them to talk about their experience of their health, not just details. Instead of “reviewing” health histories, what if we “explore” health histories? As we connect and get to know each other we can learn to listen beyond information to hear attitudes, beliefs, fears, biases, concerns, barriers, etc. As you understand their perspectives on health issues that come up in conversation, it’s easy to ask if they would like your perspective on that issue. These conversations often lead to more questions and answers that invite more and more invitations from our patients to be their partner in health.