Millennium: ADA position on lasers 'inaccurate'

Apr 28, 2009

Millennium Dental Technologies is questioning the ADA's position statement on the use of lasers in dentistry. In a press release issued April 29, the company said it considers the final document "inaccurate, misleading, and scientifically unsubstantiated," especially as it relates to laser-assisted new attachment procedure, or the LANAP protocol, pioneered by Millennium.

What is of special interest and concern to Millennium, the company said, is the focus the ADA gave to the LANAP protocol and the fact that none of the clinicians who developed the patented LANAP protocol were involved in the Working Group Committee deliberations or final document draft.

The LANAP protocol is a laser-based and patient-preferred method of treating mild to severe cases of gum disease without the use of scalpels or sutures, according to Millennium. It was developed by Robert Gregg, D.D.S., now president of Millennium, and Delwin McCarthy, D.D.S., chief technology officer of Millennium, in 1991, patented in 1994, and received FDA clearance in 2004.

"It defies logic that the inventors of anything would be excluded from any review process of an invention, especially the final review," Dr. Gregg said in the release. "In September of 2008, we were given 10 days to offer comment on a draft document. The final document indicates that our comments on the LANAP protocol were ignored. Furthermore, we were not allowed to review the proposed final statement before it was adopted and published."

"It is terribly unfortunate that after 20 years of experience in my clinical use of most lasers developed for dentistry for a variety of procedures, that the use of lasers for the purposes of treating periodontal disease, and the research that supports it, continues to be marginalized," Dr. McCarthy added.

While attempts by the ADA to offer guiding information to the public and the profession regarding the use of lasers in dentistry is a worthy objective, Millennium CEO Mark Monaghan said that the company "finds the lack of transparency in the process involved in this case and the final statement to be flawed and counterproductive."