- Email: [email protected]
Orthodontic decades in retrospect and in prospect
EDITORIAL
Orthodontic decadesin retrospect and in prospect
I
t has been said that the course of events in the development of a specialty can be traced more accurately through the pages of its periodicals than through those of its textbooks. New ideas, new concepts, and new findings almost invariably first see the light of day in scientific journals, Some concepts are good, some are mediocre, and some live only long enough to be disproved. Strangely, a few good ones are forgotten or fail to get accepted and have to be “rediscovered” by a later generation. Those that prove good ultimately find their way into textbooks, but even then they remain under constant scrutiny in the ever-continuing search for truth. If we go back a half-century to the 1920’s, we find that an acceptable percentage of orthodontic literature was devoted to basic principles, but a greater part was given over to mechanics. This should not be considered questionable, for a young, alert specialty first had to create new devices to replace the inefficient ones then in use for the treatment of malocclusion. In 1920, the ribbon arch was at its peak, but it soon was to be made obsolete with the publication of the edgewise technique during the latter half of the decade. Other articles also told of improvements in the twin-arch, open-tube, universal, and labiolingual appliances, all of which first appeared in the JOURNAL before being described in orthodontic textbooks. If the 1920’s can be called the age of mechanics, the 19,30’s can be called the age of cephalometrics. The word appeared only incidentally in the literature prior to 1930; yet, cephalomctrics has since been responsible for more articles in the JOURXAL, and the source of more research by graduate students, than any other single subject in orthodontits. By the time the 1940’s arrived, extraction oneo again was being advocated after experience hacl shown that our new appliances could not invariably grow bone in any direction at any time. Still, those new appliances could close extraction spaces like never before, and this fact alone was possibly the principal reason why the crer-present. pendulum swung much too fa.r in the extraction direction. If the 1940’s can be identified as the era of extra&ion, t,hen the 1950’s and the 1960’s can possibly be identified as the age of education and contemplation, for the specialt,y was finally taking a critical look at itself. At long last, the 617
418
Editorkl
Anter.
J. Orthodoltt. December 1970
schools were creating a new breed of orthodontists through advanced training programs, and the influence of dentistry’s first certifying board was being felt in the elevation of all orthodontic standards. Good mechanics was still essential to accomplish clinical treatment goals, but “basic science” and a critical attitude were recognized as of equal importance in the development of a truly competent orthodontist. What will the 1970’s bring? The question can no more be answered today than the 1920’s could have been characterized, in 1920, as the decade of new appliances. Or than the age of cephslometrics could have been predicted in 1930, or extraction in 1940, or the era of education in the 1960’s and the 1960’s. In this first year of the 1970’s, we can only record trends. Current literature stresses such areas as functional appliances, animal experimentation, extraoral traction, surgical orthodontics, tissue response, palate splitting, treatment techniques-and computerization which, in turn, goes back to cephalometrics. Most of these are clinical and research areas that are basically under the control of the specialty, but there is also a noteworthy trend toward a more philosophic understanding of our responsibilities. Perhaps this mill become recognized as orthodontics’ principal characteristic of the 1970’s. We can’t be too, sure, for one overriding factor remains to be considered. It is not likely that we have much control over social trends; nevertheless, we must continue to meet our obligations to public health dentistry in the treatment of “handicapping malocclusion.” Although the term was first seen in the JOURNAL as far back as 1960, and has appeared at intervals thereafter, the 1.970’s may someday be referred to as the decade of expanding social responsibility. Nine years remain for it to come to pass. B. P. D.
Orthodontic decadesin retrospect and in prospect
I
t has been said that the course of events in the development of a specialty can be traced more accurately through the pages of its periodicals than through those of its textbooks. New ideas, new concepts, and new findings almost invariably first see the light of day in scientific journals, Some concepts are good, some are mediocre, and some live only long enough to be disproved. Strangely, a few good ones are forgotten or fail to get accepted and have to be “rediscovered” by a later generation. Those that prove good ultimately find their way into textbooks, but even then they remain under constant scrutiny in the ever-continuing search for truth. If we go back a half-century to the 1920’s, we find that an acceptable percentage of orthodontic literature was devoted to basic principles, but a greater part was given over to mechanics. This should not be considered questionable, for a young, alert specialty first had to create new devices to replace the inefficient ones then in use for the treatment of malocclusion. In 1920, the ribbon arch was at its peak, but it soon was to be made obsolete with the publication of the edgewise technique during the latter half of the decade. Other articles also told of improvements in the twin-arch, open-tube, universal, and labiolingual appliances, all of which first appeared in the JOURNAL before being described in orthodontic textbooks. If the 1920’s can be called the age of mechanics, the 19,30’s can be called the age of cephalometrics. The word appeared only incidentally in the literature prior to 1930; yet, cephalomctrics has since been responsible for more articles in the JOURXAL, and the source of more research by graduate students, than any other single subject in orthodontits. By the time the 1940’s arrived, extraction oneo again was being advocated after experience hacl shown that our new appliances could not invariably grow bone in any direction at any time. Still, those new appliances could close extraction spaces like never before, and this fact alone was possibly the principal reason why the crer-present. pendulum swung much too fa.r in the extraction direction. If the 1940’s can be identified as the era of extra&ion, t,hen the 1950’s and the 1960’s can possibly be identified as the age of education and contemplation, for the specialt,y was finally taking a critical look at itself. At long last, the 617
418
Editorkl
Anter.
J. Orthodoltt. December 1970
schools were creating a new breed of orthodontists through advanced training programs, and the influence of dentistry’s first certifying board was being felt in the elevation of all orthodontic standards. Good mechanics was still essential to accomplish clinical treatment goals, but “basic science” and a critical attitude were recognized as of equal importance in the development of a truly competent orthodontist. What will the 1970’s bring? The question can no more be answered today than the 1920’s could have been characterized, in 1920, as the decade of new appliances. Or than the age of cephslometrics could have been predicted in 1930, or extraction in 1940, or the era of education in the 1960’s and the 1960’s. In this first year of the 1970’s, we can only record trends. Current literature stresses such areas as functional appliances, animal experimentation, extraoral traction, surgical orthodontics, tissue response, palate splitting, treatment techniques-and computerization which, in turn, goes back to cephalometrics. Most of these are clinical and research areas that are basically under the control of the specialty, but there is also a noteworthy trend toward a more philosophic understanding of our responsibilities. Perhaps this mill become recognized as orthodontics’ principal characteristic of the 1970’s. We can’t be too, sure, for one overriding factor remains to be considered. It is not likely that we have much control over social trends; nevertheless, we must continue to meet our obligations to public health dentistry in the treatment of “handicapping malocclusion.” Although the term was first seen in the JOURNAL as far back as 1960, and has appeared at intervals thereafter, the 1.970’s may someday be referred to as the decade of expanding social responsibility. Nine years remain for it to come to pass. B. P. D.