Rather than fantasizing on whether dental therapists might be a disruptive innovation in the United States, one should look to those states and countries with a long history of successful implementation—particularly New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain, and most recently Alaska—without any disruption of dental practice.1,2 To put the matter in perspective, was the practice of medicine disrupted by the innovative introduction of nurse practitioners and physician assistants? Was the practice of dentistry in the United States disrupted by the innovative introduction of dental hygienists? Of course not. In each instance, the mid-level providers extended health care more broadly to the public without any disruption to the professions. It is fallacious to counterpose health care with industrial production, as if mid-level providers compete with and, if successful, replace the top-level doctor-providers in a competitive free market. Innovation in health care cannot be compared with disruptive innovations in industries such as the effect of the Internet on newspapers, or the digital camera on film cameras and film manufacturing, or the automobile on the horse and buggy. In no instance has the introduction of mid-level providers disrupted the practice of medicine or dentistry or harmed the status or income of doctors. The only disruption has been in the politics of the professions that oppose the innovations. Mid-level professionals neither replace nor diminish doctors, but rather assist and enhance their practices. In the case of dental therapists, it is only in the minds of traditional dentists and their trade organizations, principally the American Dental Association, that there is disruption. Edelstein presents the views of both opponents and proponents of dental therapists, as though they have equal credence. But almost all the arguments in opposition are based on assertions that have been shown to be false. For example, opponents still say that dental therapists provide substandard care when their quality of care has been documented time and again in objective studies to be equal to that of dentists. They question if the public will accept or be satisfied with dental therapists when studies have confirmed a high level of acceptance and satisfaction.3 Giving equal space to false arguments can only have the effect of diluting the evidence that innovative health care providers such as nurse practitioners and dental therapists do not disrupt the professions, much to the benefit of the public.