Isn’t this type of dishonesty especially ambiguous and difficult to prove? There are extreme cases, but also a broad range of opinion in which professionals routinely disagree.
The higher the stakes, the more ambiguous the problem: I’m reminded of lawyering. How do we know if a defense lawyer is “bad” or “dishonest”? If we look at their conviction ratio, then we might just be punishing the ones who tend to work the more hopeless cases—and a good lawyer is correct to behave as if even guilty people deserve a full defense. If we ask the customer/defendants, pretty much anybody who loses will loudly explain how they’re innocent and would have gotten off if it weren’t for that bad lawyer they had.
The dentist who treats aggressively will explain how the “wait-and-see” dentist is neglecting problems, and the “wait-and-see” dentist will explain, like the tech people commenting here, that the aggressive dentists are doing stuff that’s unnecessary (or not necessary yet).
I, a person who pays for my own dental care, will continue to prefer and seek out a conservative approach to treatment; an acquaintance of mine, who has dental insurance but gets it from a startup job that could evaporate tomorrow, will prefer to gather his implants while he may. Which of our dentists should be ruined for life, “stunningly, shockingly,” and permanently crippled?