This, and the fact that a sterilized robot is way less likely to transmit airborne pathogens than a dentist and an assistant wearing a surgical mask at best. Maybe not v.1.0b4, but I'd sign up for v.1.2.
Long ago (decades) the dentist would do a bunch of work, then pause to let me swish water in my mouth from the auto-filling cup, and spit into the water-circulating spitoon-thing before continuing.
On first blush, this is an interesting premise. And it would seem to make sense once there is no need for human attendants, nor any potential accommodation for them.
This sounds more like a systemic issue than a technological one. New tech will most likely only support the current system (profit over people, in your case), and not magically make things fairer or more social.
Whenever there's information asymmetry that financially benefits one party you have to be cautious. It's been shocking how many times people I know have sought second opinions on recommended dental work only to be given a completely different recommended treatment that's thousands of dollars cheaper.
Example from a friend: Dentist 1 - you need ten fillings today! Dentist 2 - You have a few risk spots but let's just keep an eye on it.
Went with the second recommendation and didn't have any issues and that was a decade ago.
What makes you think that the robot won't have a financial interest? The company that makes it will want a profit. The dentist that buys it wants to make a profit. If there's an AI under the hood, it might decide that someone needs to pay for its electricity habit.
That being said, I agree that it's a difficult part of the fee-for-service model.
If the robot's decision-making process is transparent then 100% agreed. I just know, however, that (at least as long as state-of-the-art 'AI' consists of huge models trained on big data) the advice given by any free-on-the-internet bot will have built-in biases towards paid recommendations and similarly insidious things.
Fantastic development (I’m in the dental field) As a side note; a Chinese team already performed an implant surgery with a “fully automatic” robotic system in 2017.
I had an implant done recently and I got the impression that the device used to install the implant although being held by the dentist was actually monitoring its position & orientation very carefully.
Dental repair is really nothing. Automatic welders are very common e.g.
I've worked on automatic brain surgery robots, which really needs to be automatic. because 3d, tricky, and the doctor outside sees much less than the tiny sensors inside. but you can interfere and even invite remote specialists on remote duty to observe or handle the pedals.
That's interesting! Up to now, I've never seen automated surgical robots. They're just big swiss knives with stereo vision, usually. Are there automated robots on the market ?
> I've worked on automatic brain surgery robots, which really needs to be automatic. because 3d, tricky, and the doctor outside sees much less than the tiny sensors inside. but you can interfere and even invite remote specialists on remote duty to observe or handle the pedals.
Just curious.. Are these fully automatic/autonomous? I assume human supervision is required but are there steps that humans have to choose/decide such that the robot could not possibly work without any human supervision?
Sometimes the drill is necessary, but imagine how infrequently we'd need it if there were robots in our homes that could do an immaculate job with the daily cleaning.
But maybe, before we remove any amount of comfort with another human being we look at wether all of the dental practices are actually backed by science (which there is some scruitiny over).
But also going to the dentist already isn't exactly pleasant, the pokes, scrapes, drill noises, etc. Maybe we improve that first before sticking it in a robot?
People already have a ton of anxiety about going to the dentist. Removing humans will make that worse.
I realize this is early, but still. I feel like we skipped some things.
But will it carry on a conversation with me that consists entirely of open mouthed vowel sounds? I'm not sure speech recognition has gotten quite that far.
I'm 100% positive that if you came up with something "first in the world", but the risk of death was 50% during the procedure, you would find people willing to do it.
It’s going to become increasingly apparent in the US over time the degree to which doctors & the regulatory state are blocking us from getting cheap new care.
Already ML algos are more accurate at diagnosing melanomas from an image than dermatologists - but we will never get that tech because doctors are fiercely protective of their salaries and have captured the arm of the state to help them do so.
This is great news. Many people, even in developed countries, suffer a lack of quality dental care because of the cost. Once these devices become widespread, costs should start to drop significantly.
I would be more comfortable with this technology if it had saw-stop like behavior. If I sneeze it has to be fast enough to safe the dental tool before I impale myself on it.
> Remarkably, the company claims the machine can take care of business safely "even in the most movement-heavy conditions," and that dry run testing on moving humans has all been successful. There sure are some brave guinea pig types out there.
There is something about the "moving humans" part in the article that doesn't hold water.
From what I noticed, dentists use fingers 4 and 5 to track the movement of the head or jaw. I saw no such tracking in this robot, with the article simply making a handwavy "trust AI" argument.
In general, I think if robots are to overdo humans, they should do that with improved sensors and actuators, not just "enough AI".
There is no mention of a feedback mechanism for the patient to express that the pain level is too high and something should be changed in method and/or anesthetic.
And what about soft tissues? Does the robot image those so it knows there is a tongue in the way?
From the pictures, it looks like the dentist is positioning the machine so I'm guessing the administration of the anesthetic and ensuring the area is clear will be on them.
Hair cut actually seems like it would be more complex than dental surgery. You only have about 32 teeth, they are large, and they shouldn't move around much. Compare that to 100,000 extremely thin strands of hair in varying length moving about all willy-nilly.
At least 20 years before you get to see one in an office doing very limited procedures. The dental association isn’t gonna give this an easy path to replace human dentists
SO is a dentist. They laughed and said 90% detection leaves a lot to be desired, and there's rarely a good reason to not have an X-ray.*
In addition, there's some things a human dentist does that I doubt this does - early detection of oral or skin cancer on the face being one of them. If you have the same dentist you'd be amazed at what they remember about your face and what's different from last time.
General vibe is that even if it can technically do a drill 'n' fill, it has a long way to go before it can substitute for a trained medical professional.
* Edit: I'm actually going to go further and say that calling an X-ray "harmful" should constitute disinformation and therefore wariness towards the attitude or motive of the author, since it's patently not true. The fraction they use at the dentist's isn't going to hurt anyone. The comparison point I've heard (and can't personally verify) is 6 dental X-rays is equivalent to 1 trans-Atlantic flight; alternatively 1 x-ray to a weekend in Cornwall.
> there's some things a human dentist does that I doubt this does - early detection of oral or skin cancer on the face being one of them
I'm sure this can happen, but that's different to every dentist doing it. And a dentist doing harder to automate stuff while the 15 minutes go on instead of 2 hours means way more patients treated in the same time period, which means costs can hopefully come way down for some dentistry.
> there's rarely a good reason to not have an X-ray
I'd much rather have a 90% detection rate without an X-ray than 100% with. Destists are very trigger-happy with X-rays, in part because of the extra billing, but mostly because it makes their job easier and prevents mistakes.
The estimates of the hidden costs of radiation risk are tentative at best. Some people have inherently higher risk and many are not aware of it. Either way, it can take years or decades before the effect plays out. By then, no one is going to implicate the original providers who pushed for an elective X-ray.
Also, note that not all ionizing radiation is alike. The exact spectra are different and the exposure intervals are very different, so the comparisons to environmental sources don't necessarily hold.
I keep seeing this template response/attitude but I think it’s generally flawed. Here’s why.
You judge a prototype / instance of a technological field that’s otherwise in full swing, cranking on releasing next version long before you see the current one
You assume this will be isolated from the rest of advancements, but in reality once you have the mechanics to automate imagery and drilling 100x more technologies can be composed. Memory in particular is something tech has always surpassed humans.
The combination of these two, particularly in the context of AI is much faster than most people can perceive.
So saying yes but x, is irrelevant for the most part.
The problem with your observation is this is what can be done TODAY with a robot. Current dentists are indeed safe as you point out.
But after 20 years of iteration it might be able to do most or all of what you describe. This means that my 8 year old should maybe not, when he grads from college in the future, decide to go to dental school and rack up $200K of debt (actually that’s conservative) for a profession that won’t disappear but will likely face tremendous downward pressure (ability to perform more operations==fewer dentists needed==greater competition among dentists). And that is the problem.
[+] [-] drewchew|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] worstspotgain|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|1 year ago|reply
EDIT: hmm... a "dental engine"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_engine
better results searching for "dental spit sink"
[+] [-] settsu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] elif|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] herrherrmann|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sunjieming|1 year ago|reply
Example from a friend: Dentist 1 - you need ten fillings today! Dentist 2 - You have a few risk spots but let's just keep an eye on it.
Went with the second recommendation and didn't have any issues and that was a decade ago.
[+] [-] Zambyte|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|1 year ago|reply
That being said, I agree that it's a difficult part of the fee-for-service model.
[+] [-] taneq|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] idiotsecant|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] novok|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] spacecity1971|1 year ago|reply
https://time.com/4952886/china-world-first-dental-surgery-ro...
[+] [-] arethuza|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rurban|1 year ago|reply
I've worked on automatic brain surgery robots, which really needs to be automatic. because 3d, tricky, and the doctor outside sees much less than the tiny sensors inside. but you can interfere and even invite remote specialists on remote duty to observe or handle the pedals.
[+] [-] rscho|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] onemoresoop|1 year ago|reply
Just curious.. Are these fully automatic/autonomous? I assume human supervision is required but are there steps that humans have to choose/decide such that the robot could not possibly work without any human supervision?
[+] [-] veunes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pier25|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] __MatrixMan__|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdjon|1 year ago|reply
But maybe, before we remove any amount of comfort with another human being we look at wether all of the dental practices are actually backed by science (which there is some scruitiny over).
But also going to the dentist already isn't exactly pleasant, the pokes, scrapes, drill noises, etc. Maybe we improve that first before sticking it in a robot?
People already have a ton of anxiety about going to the dentist. Removing humans will make that worse.
I realize this is early, but still. I feel like we skipped some things.
[+] [-] rtkwe|1 year ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F7sWy4JQ18
[+] [-] ugh123|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hiddencost|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] QuaternionsBhop|1 year ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qobhDJ_vEOc
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] apwell23|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] avgDev|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] whimsicalism|1 year ago|reply
Already ML algos are more accurate at diagnosing melanomas from an image than dermatologists - but we will never get that tech because doctors are fiercely protective of their salaries and have captured the arm of the state to help them do so.
[+] [-] d_burfoot|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] iandanforth|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] anticristi|1 year ago|reply
From what I noticed, dentists use fingers 4 and 5 to track the movement of the head or jaw. I saw no such tracking in this robot, with the article simply making a handwavy "trust AI" argument.
In general, I think if robots are to overdo humans, they should do that with improved sensors and actuators, not just "enough AI".
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|1 year ago|reply
You can say that again.
[+] [-] krunck|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cogman10|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amelius|1 year ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYKvjzWyYzA
[+] [-] isk517|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] m3kw9|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] perlgeek|1 year ago|reply
Otherwise very impressive.
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|1 year ago|reply
Why be accurate when your goal is to make money, and suggest procedures, rather than be accurate?
[+] [-] sierra1011|1 year ago|reply
In addition, there's some things a human dentist does that I doubt this does - early detection of oral or skin cancer on the face being one of them. If you have the same dentist you'd be amazed at what they remember about your face and what's different from last time.
General vibe is that even if it can technically do a drill 'n' fill, it has a long way to go before it can substitute for a trained medical professional.
* Edit: I'm actually going to go further and say that calling an X-ray "harmful" should constitute disinformation and therefore wariness towards the attitude or motive of the author, since it's patently not true. The fraction they use at the dentist's isn't going to hurt anyone. The comparison point I've heard (and can't personally verify) is 6 dental X-rays is equivalent to 1 trans-Atlantic flight; alternatively 1 x-ray to a weekend in Cornwall.
[+] [-] robertlagrant|1 year ago|reply
I'm sure this can happen, but that's different to every dentist doing it. And a dentist doing harder to automate stuff while the 15 minutes go on instead of 2 hours means way more patients treated in the same time period, which means costs can hopefully come way down for some dentistry.
[+] [-] worstspotgain|1 year ago|reply
I'd much rather have a 90% detection rate without an X-ray than 100% with. Destists are very trigger-happy with X-rays, in part because of the extra billing, but mostly because it makes their job easier and prevents mistakes.
The estimates of the hidden costs of radiation risk are tentative at best. Some people have inherently higher risk and many are not aware of it. Either way, it can take years or decades before the effect plays out. By then, no one is going to implicate the original providers who pushed for an elective X-ray.
Also, note that not all ionizing radiation is alike. The exact spectra are different and the exposure intervals are very different, so the comparisons to environmental sources don't necessarily hold.
[+] [-] random3|1 year ago|reply
You judge a prototype / instance of a technological field that’s otherwise in full swing, cranking on releasing next version long before you see the current one
You assume this will be isolated from the rest of advancements, but in reality once you have the mechanics to automate imagery and drilling 100x more technologies can be composed. Memory in particular is something tech has always surpassed humans.
The combination of these two, particularly in the context of AI is much faster than most people can perceive.
So saying yes but x, is irrelevant for the most part.
[+] [-] insane_dreamer|1 year ago|reply
But after 20 years of iteration it might be able to do most or all of what you describe. This means that my 8 year old should maybe not, when he grads from college in the future, decide to go to dental school and rack up $200K of debt (actually that’s conservative) for a profession that won’t disappear but will likely face tremendous downward pressure (ability to perform more operations==fewer dentists needed==greater competition among dentists). And that is the problem.
[+] [-] meroes|1 year ago|reply
He also noticed I had a breathing issue.
Pass.
[+] [-] why_at|1 year ago|reply
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
[+] [-] thih9|1 year ago|reply
This seems unrelated to the fact that a robot is performing the procedure. Is there anything that prevents human dentists from using OCT instead too?
Also, I guess X-Ray usually isn't part of the process in a procedure like this - but IANAD.