- Email: [email protected]
An interesting letter
Editorials
105,
in behalf of the canine law and contends that the whole gesture is so hopelessly unscientific in general concept that it only befuddles the entire field of orthodontia, that it builds up a false mental hodgepodge in the approach to the subject that is confusing, particularly to the younger man. The two approaches are fundamentally widely separated. One school has the yardstick of average normal; the other does not believe that an average normal is within the issues of the problem and does not budge from the biologic viewpoint of the law of variation in living things. Although the average orthodontist is left in a maze of conflicting testimony from which he must necessarily emerge, he must draw his own common sense conclusions and then wait for time to reveal the truth. One concept is right and one is wrong-that is obvious. Time and experience alone will settle this question, as they do in almost all problems of physical diagnosis in the human being. It is conservative and reasonable to assume that those interested pro and con in the subject will not reach any unanimity of opinion. Gnathostatics, nevertheless, being one among several cephalometric ideas for diagnosis of malocclusion, will no doubt add its contribution to the general consideration of the whole orthodontic problem. Whether the composite idea of craniometric diagnosis and its correlated equipment is important to the everyday problem of correcting malocclusion and retaining the correction, or whether it is not, is a matter of individual opinion ; however, it can be said that a broadened viewpoint has resulted from the work and discussions on this subject. It has taught men to look further than oral manifestations alone for diagnosis of malocclusion, and it must be given credit for broadening the diagnostic survey far beyond the planes of the skull and to orient diagnosis in terms of the entire human body, including the fields of biology, pathology, and genetics. The latter fields have made orthodontists think of the maxillary bones as living, pulsating things, not made of steel and concrete; and that mirrorlike, if there is anything wrong in the body, symptoms appears somewhere, and sometimes the symptoms may include malocclusion, as well as large feet and hands or any abnormal skeletal growth. Whether first molar or the law of the canine-their anatomic position in the skull, relatively, depends largely on hereditary predetermination; and at best either or both are nothing more than shifting corner stones convenient as a base from which to work in this problem, and they are important only to that extent. That relative positions in growing things are not identically the same today as they will be tomorrow is a good fact to remember in the practice of orthodontia. H. C. P.
N THE October, 1934, issue of this Journal was published an editorial e&&M “Dr. Henry A. Baker and the Baker Anchorage.” At that time, the e&&or had not had the opportunity of reading a letter dated December 16, 16% w%& was written to the late Dr. Baker by the late Dr. Angle. Thii letter will be af
I
Editorials
106
It is, therefore, published herewith in interest to all practicing orthodontists. the editorial pages because of its historical background and as a matter of orthodontic record. St. Louis, MO., December 16, 1899. Dr. H. A. Baker, Boston, Mass. : Your welcome favor of the 1st instant received and in as to how I like your method of treating casea of protrusion (meaning Class II, Division 1) will say that I am each day more and more favorably impressed with it. It widens the field of possibilities in orthodontia; there can be no doubt of it. It seems to me, after using it in seven cases, to be the missing link-something I have wanted so long. The chain is complete. We are limited now by our individual skill. The scientific road has been cleared and graded so that orthodontia may now be taught and pramtised along scientific lines. It is no longer chaotic. Of course I may modify my opinion in regard to your method after more experience, for one swallow or seven don’t make a summer, yet I do not think there is even a possibility of my changing my views, for, as I have said, I am more and more impressed each day with its value. I regret I was not a little more pronounced relative to it, in my book, but you know that could hardly be, for only the nearest to facts should go in works of that kind. I wish you would explain how you made the speed you did in the caee you report. I cannot conceive of the tissues yielding to that extent in that time. With best wishes and a Merry Christmas, I am Dear Dr. Bdw:
answer to your inquiry
(Signed)
Your friend, EDWARD H. ANQLE.
H. C. P.
105,
in behalf of the canine law and contends that the whole gesture is so hopelessly unscientific in general concept that it only befuddles the entire field of orthodontia, that it builds up a false mental hodgepodge in the approach to the subject that is confusing, particularly to the younger man. The two approaches are fundamentally widely separated. One school has the yardstick of average normal; the other does not believe that an average normal is within the issues of the problem and does not budge from the biologic viewpoint of the law of variation in living things. Although the average orthodontist is left in a maze of conflicting testimony from which he must necessarily emerge, he must draw his own common sense conclusions and then wait for time to reveal the truth. One concept is right and one is wrong-that is obvious. Time and experience alone will settle this question, as they do in almost all problems of physical diagnosis in the human being. It is conservative and reasonable to assume that those interested pro and con in the subject will not reach any unanimity of opinion. Gnathostatics, nevertheless, being one among several cephalometric ideas for diagnosis of malocclusion, will no doubt add its contribution to the general consideration of the whole orthodontic problem. Whether the composite idea of craniometric diagnosis and its correlated equipment is important to the everyday problem of correcting malocclusion and retaining the correction, or whether it is not, is a matter of individual opinion ; however, it can be said that a broadened viewpoint has resulted from the work and discussions on this subject. It has taught men to look further than oral manifestations alone for diagnosis of malocclusion, and it must be given credit for broadening the diagnostic survey far beyond the planes of the skull and to orient diagnosis in terms of the entire human body, including the fields of biology, pathology, and genetics. The latter fields have made orthodontists think of the maxillary bones as living, pulsating things, not made of steel and concrete; and that mirrorlike, if there is anything wrong in the body, symptoms appears somewhere, and sometimes the symptoms may include malocclusion, as well as large feet and hands or any abnormal skeletal growth. Whether first molar or the law of the canine-their anatomic position in the skull, relatively, depends largely on hereditary predetermination; and at best either or both are nothing more than shifting corner stones convenient as a base from which to work in this problem, and they are important only to that extent. That relative positions in growing things are not identically the same today as they will be tomorrow is a good fact to remember in the practice of orthodontia. H. C. P.
N THE October, 1934, issue of this Journal was published an editorial e&&M “Dr. Henry A. Baker and the Baker Anchorage.” At that time, the e&&or had not had the opportunity of reading a letter dated December 16, 16% w%& was written to the late Dr. Baker by the late Dr. Angle. Thii letter will be af
I
Editorials
106
It is, therefore, published herewith in interest to all practicing orthodontists. the editorial pages because of its historical background and as a matter of orthodontic record. St. Louis, MO., December 16, 1899. Dr. H. A. Baker, Boston, Mass. : Your welcome favor of the 1st instant received and in as to how I like your method of treating casea of protrusion (meaning Class II, Division 1) will say that I am each day more and more favorably impressed with it. It widens the field of possibilities in orthodontia; there can be no doubt of it. It seems to me, after using it in seven cases, to be the missing link-something I have wanted so long. The chain is complete. We are limited now by our individual skill. The scientific road has been cleared and graded so that orthodontia may now be taught and pramtised along scientific lines. It is no longer chaotic. Of course I may modify my opinion in regard to your method after more experience, for one swallow or seven don’t make a summer, yet I do not think there is even a possibility of my changing my views, for, as I have said, I am more and more impressed each day with its value. I regret I was not a little more pronounced relative to it, in my book, but you know that could hardly be, for only the nearest to facts should go in works of that kind. I wish you would explain how you made the speed you did in the caee you report. I cannot conceive of the tissues yielding to that extent in that time. With best wishes and a Merry Christmas, I am Dear Dr. Bdw:
answer to your inquiry
(Signed)
Your friend, EDWARD H. ANQLE.
H. C. P.