Statement of problem: Alternative health practitioners compete with established dentistry and medicine for the treatment of many conditions. Their popularity accrues because of deficiencies of current treatments, increased acceptance of self-treatment, and a highly individualized approach. Ineffective alternative therapies can appear effective because of the placebo effect, symptom variability, short-term observations, combination with established treatments, and reporting bias. Alternative therapies often lack a rational basis. A sound theory underlying a treatment enables the approach to be integrated with other areas of science and leads to progressive research.
Purpose: This article argues that alternative therapies can best be considered bad science that commonly violates normal scientific norms or criteria for acceptance including comprehensiveness, falsifiability, openness, and objectivity.
Conclusions: The claims of alternative therapists are useful in identifying perceived deficiencies in conventional treatments. Suggestions for countering alternative practitioners' claims include targeted research and improved access to and evaluation of the dental research literature.