- Email: [email protected]
History of orthodontics
126 Readers’ forum
used and considered to be safe, but he seems to question whether, after cured, it contains less residual monomer than heat-cured materials. In regard to this, Rose et al20 confirmed that heat-cured acrylic resins have, by far, better performance considering leaching of monomer and cytotoxic profile when compared with auto- and light-cured materials. Before we finish, it is proper to mention that, in this time of evidence-based dentistry, comments should be supported by scientific findings and not mere personal opinions. Because we believe in Mr Lauren’s good intentions, the opportunity to elucidate any points that might have been cloudy can only be well appreciated. Finally, we thank the editor for the opportunity to respond to the comments about our article published in the March 2006 issue of the AJO-DO. Tatiana Siqueira Gonçalves Mario A. Morganti Luis C. Campos Susana Maria Deon Rizzatto Luciane Macedo de Menezes Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:125-6 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.009
REFERENCES 1. Jacobsen N, Hensten-Pettersen A. Changes in occupational health problems and adverse patient reactions in orthodontics from 1987 to 2000. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:591-8. 2. Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, Estlander T, Hannuksela M, Harvima R.J, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:83-7. 3. Allergic contact rashes. http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/ pamphlets/AllergicContactRashes.htm. Accessed on June 5, 2006. 4. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kanerva L. Gas cromatographic and mass spectrometric purity analysis of acrylates and methacrylates used as patch test substances. Am J Contact Dermat 1997;8:20-3. 5. Koutis D, Freeman, S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:203-6. 6. Giunta J, Zablotsky N. Allergic stomatitis caused by selfpolymerizing resin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976;41: 631-7. 7. Fernstron AI, Oquist G. Location of the allergenic monomer in warm polymerized acrylic dentures: part I: causes of denture sore mouth, incidence of allergy, different allergens and test methods on suspicion of allergy analysis of denture and test casting. Swed Dent J 1980;4:241-52. 8. Hochman N, Zalkind M. Hypersensitivity to methyl methacrylate: mode of treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:93-6. 9. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2000,43:232-3. 10. Saccabusi S, Boatto G, Asproni B, Pau A. Sensitization to methyl methacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusion set. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:47-8. 11. Auzerie V, Mahe E, Marck Y, Auffret N, Descamps V, Crickx B. Oral lichenoid eruption due to methacrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:241. 12. Giroux L, Pratt MD. Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads in a (meth)acrylate allergic patient. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13: 143-5.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2006
13. Ruiz-Genao DP, Moreno de Vega MJ, Sanchez Perez J, GarciaDiez A. Labial edema due to an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48:273-4. 14. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K. Statistics on allergic patch test reactions caused by acrylate compounds, including data on ethyl methacrylate. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:75-7. 15. Kanerva L, Tarvainen K, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Succesful coating of an allergenic acrylate-based dental prosthesis. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:24-7. 16. Ruyter IE. Release of formaldehyde from denture base polymers. Acta Odontol Scand 1980;38:17-27. 17. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Kato H, Takagi N. Flow injection analysis of formaldehyde leached from denture-base acrylic resins. J Dent 1993;21:240-3. 18. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N. Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71: 618-24. 19. Kusy RP. Clinical response to allergies in patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:544-7. 20. Rose EC, Bumann J, Jonas IE, Kappert H. Contribution to the biological assessment of orthodontic acrylic materials. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:246-57.
History of orthodontics I read with interest Norman Wahl’s recent installment on the history of orthodontics (Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 8: The cephalometer takes its place in the orthodontic armamentarium. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129: 574-80). I noted, however, that Rocco J. DiPaolo was not included with those who made significant contributions to cephalometric radiography. Approximately 40 years ago, DiPaolo introduced the quadrilateral analysis, formulated to differentiate between malocclusions of skeletal and nonskeletal origins and to identify dysplasias regarding relative size and position of the lower facial components. Essentially, it is a proportionality concept that is concerned primarily with the skeletal configuration in a dentofacial complex in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, regardless of dentoalveolar relationships. By detecting any skeletal excess, deficiency, or postural position in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, this individualized assessment enables the clinician to institute the appropriate mechanics but also forewarns of any skeletal limitation that might compromise treatment. Quadrilateral analysis became an integral part of orthodontic education in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, NJ. Thousands of patients were evaluated cephalometrically, and many research studies were conducted, showing this analysis to be statistically significant. Chris Philip New York, NY Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:126 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.007
used and considered to be safe, but he seems to question whether, after cured, it contains less residual monomer than heat-cured materials. In regard to this, Rose et al20 confirmed that heat-cured acrylic resins have, by far, better performance considering leaching of monomer and cytotoxic profile when compared with auto- and light-cured materials. Before we finish, it is proper to mention that, in this time of evidence-based dentistry, comments should be supported by scientific findings and not mere personal opinions. Because we believe in Mr Lauren’s good intentions, the opportunity to elucidate any points that might have been cloudy can only be well appreciated. Finally, we thank the editor for the opportunity to respond to the comments about our article published in the March 2006 issue of the AJO-DO. Tatiana Siqueira Gonçalves Mario A. Morganti Luis C. Campos Susana Maria Deon Rizzatto Luciane Macedo de Menezes Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:125-6 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.009
REFERENCES 1. Jacobsen N, Hensten-Pettersen A. Changes in occupational health problems and adverse patient reactions in orthodontics from 1987 to 2000. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:591-8. 2. Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, Estlander T, Hannuksela M, Harvima R.J, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:83-7. 3. Allergic contact rashes. http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/ pamphlets/AllergicContactRashes.htm. Accessed on June 5, 2006. 4. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kanerva L. Gas cromatographic and mass spectrometric purity analysis of acrylates and methacrylates used as patch test substances. Am J Contact Dermat 1997;8:20-3. 5. Koutis D, Freeman, S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:203-6. 6. Giunta J, Zablotsky N. Allergic stomatitis caused by selfpolymerizing resin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976;41: 631-7. 7. Fernstron AI, Oquist G. Location of the allergenic monomer in warm polymerized acrylic dentures: part I: causes of denture sore mouth, incidence of allergy, different allergens and test methods on suspicion of allergy analysis of denture and test casting. Swed Dent J 1980;4:241-52. 8. Hochman N, Zalkind M. Hypersensitivity to methyl methacrylate: mode of treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:93-6. 9. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2000,43:232-3. 10. Saccabusi S, Boatto G, Asproni B, Pau A. Sensitization to methyl methacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusion set. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:47-8. 11. Auzerie V, Mahe E, Marck Y, Auffret N, Descamps V, Crickx B. Oral lichenoid eruption due to methacrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:241. 12. Giroux L, Pratt MD. Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads in a (meth)acrylate allergic patient. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13: 143-5.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2006
13. Ruiz-Genao DP, Moreno de Vega MJ, Sanchez Perez J, GarciaDiez A. Labial edema due to an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48:273-4. 14. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K. Statistics on allergic patch test reactions caused by acrylate compounds, including data on ethyl methacrylate. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:75-7. 15. Kanerva L, Tarvainen K, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Succesful coating of an allergenic acrylate-based dental prosthesis. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:24-7. 16. Ruyter IE. Release of formaldehyde from denture base polymers. Acta Odontol Scand 1980;38:17-27. 17. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Kato H, Takagi N. Flow injection analysis of formaldehyde leached from denture-base acrylic resins. J Dent 1993;21:240-3. 18. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N. Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71: 618-24. 19. Kusy RP. Clinical response to allergies in patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:544-7. 20. Rose EC, Bumann J, Jonas IE, Kappert H. Contribution to the biological assessment of orthodontic acrylic materials. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:246-57.
History of orthodontics I read with interest Norman Wahl’s recent installment on the history of orthodontics (Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 8: The cephalometer takes its place in the orthodontic armamentarium. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129: 574-80). I noted, however, that Rocco J. DiPaolo was not included with those who made significant contributions to cephalometric radiography. Approximately 40 years ago, DiPaolo introduced the quadrilateral analysis, formulated to differentiate between malocclusions of skeletal and nonskeletal origins and to identify dysplasias regarding relative size and position of the lower facial components. Essentially, it is a proportionality concept that is concerned primarily with the skeletal configuration in a dentofacial complex in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, regardless of dentoalveolar relationships. By detecting any skeletal excess, deficiency, or postural position in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, this individualized assessment enables the clinician to institute the appropriate mechanics but also forewarns of any skeletal limitation that might compromise treatment. Quadrilateral analysis became an integral part of orthodontic education in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, NJ. Thousands of patients were evaluated cephalometrically, and many research studies were conducted, showing this analysis to be statistically significant. Chris Philip New York, NY Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:126 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.007