My own dog underwent this “anesthesia-free” dentistry two or three years ago when we were first exposed to it here in Florida. Though the board-certified veterinary dentists we know were appalled at the very thought, all three of the vets in our practice thought it might be cool to see how much they could really do—using my Frenchie Sophie Sue as a model. (btw, They promised polishing and “beneath the gumline” work.)

Sophie is normally a model patient but she struggled under their care and, ultimately, got a pretty crappy job. Three months later she had more tartar on her teeth than ever—most likely because of their inability to properly polish after scraping.

Since then I’ve properly treated her teeth under anesthesia and have been able to keep the tartar easily under control (as before the “anesthesia-free” procedure) with simple brushing and weekly raw, meaty bones (which I take away after she starts to grind away directly on the bone so as not to risk any dental fractures).

That’s MY story but your post raises another issue:

Why is it that when vets like me urge people to stay away from this procedure we’re often viewed as selfishly protecting our industry? If I would much rather anesthetize my own pets than risk the discomfort and poor health outcome of “anesthesia-free” dentals I’d think it would be clear: It’s just not worth it.

Thanks for offering your own para-industrial take on a procedure I think wastes people’s money, plays ruthlessly on their fears and harms our pets. It always helps to have the message come from a non-vet with nothing to gain or lose except her sparkling reputation.