The crisis in orthodontia Part I 3. Critical review of the publications on orthodontia by

THE

CRISIS

IN ORTHODONTIA” I

YART

3. CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE PUBLICATIONS ON ORTNOJJ~NTIA BY B. GOTTLIEB, B. ORBAN, A. M. SCHWARZ, AND J. A. MARSHALL~ ALBIN

OPPENHEIM,

VIENNA,

AUSTRIA

In addition to the observations of the Angle School, statements of other unprejudiced observers, nonadherers of Angle, who agree entirely in tbia respect with the Angle School and who have tried “j~~@qkg” ag;ain and again only to cast it finally aside, are found in the literature. Thus, for iltstance, Korkhaus writes (Moderne Orthotlontische Therapie, 1932, p, 175) : “The ‘jumping the bite,’ introduced by Kingsley, would be a very sg~eeabk method of treatment because of the immediate cosmetic sa&cess if one e&d only rely upon a permanent result. Our few attempts to push t&e ~~~~~e forward forcibly (hinge-joint, Hesbst) have always f&led evenii ~~~~~~ in young patients. That others had the same experience has &!en enough been stated (Case, Dewey, Lock&t). The strange part of the a&tar is that as yet the proofs for the permanency of the results are still lacking in the literature. . . . It seems to me fairly certain that in spite of great. efforts n large percentage of these cases relapse.” We read in the textbook of Kantorowicz (Klinische Zahnheilkunde, 1324, momentary p. 731): “By t,he jumping method we can achieve a perplexing success. . . . I am sceptical as to the permanency of the results once the growth of the jaw is completed. . . .” H. C. Visick states (INTERNAT. J. ORTH. 16: 128’7, 1930) : “Plates w&h inclined planes to ‘jump the bite’ are a failure in every case I have seen.” Identical experiences were had by the Orthodontic Department of the Dental Institute of the University of Vienna, where nearly 100 eases w’sre treated, resulting in ultimate fai1ure.S Similar observatians were made by Milo Hellman among his own cases, as well as among those of the late James I. Lane. From Lundstriim (Ztschr. f. Zahnlirztl. Orthopa~die, 1911, p. 151) I quo&e the experience of Talbot : “I never was successful in performing this operation [jumping] although I tried it often in many cases, and I do not believe that its performance is possible . . .‘I (p. 153) : “Talbot felt sure that his operation could not be accomplished, although Kingsley asserted to have *From the Department of Orthodontia of the Dental Institute of the UniWrsity of Vkmha. ~Translated in abbreviated form from Ztsohr. f. +SfomULt. SWpiement to No. 22, NovemWr, 1933, gubltshed by Urban g, Schwarsenberg, Vienna and Ber&I. bAnlong all these cases a good result of the active.treatment w&4 obtaafned in 3 eWe% which were treated with inclined planes: however, these gaf&%ts stflL wear the &~!lfWd plaaes, and therefore, it is not yet possible to pass judgment OR the permanency of -the results. 333

334

Albin

Oppenheim

succeeded several times. To clear up the situation Talbot once had this original idea: To set up a prize of 100 dollars for Kingsley or any one who result.” could prove to have performed such an operation with perma,nent To gain a general view of the present opinion of the leaders of our proFrom 4 men I received no answer; one answer fession I sent out 2’7 inquiries. was evasive with an undecided point of view; 6 answers were an affirmation of successful employment of the method, and 16 men answered absolutely in the negative. The affirmation of success thus appears six times in written form; there exists, however, up to now, no tangible proofs whatever of the successes of these six men, except for one case of Northcroft’s. As far as I could ascertain, Northcroft’s case is the only one successfully treated by the jumping method and published in dental literature (Dental Record, 1930, p. 259). Northcroft was kind enough to place the models of this case at my disposal; even after many years, it is really an unquestionable success. But one swallow does not make a summer. It may be that this case was one of the not very rare cases of mandibular retrusion in which,

Fig.

A. 15 .-Angle’s

23. Figs.

615.

618,

and

c. 622.

l?cr

explination.

see text.

after the removal of the obstacle (widening of the maxillary arch), the mandible slipped forward by itself. Very interesting are the answers of the sixteen orthodontic authorities reporting their failures. The answer is nearly always the same: “I have never seen a permanent result. “I As most weighty, may be considered the answer of R. Ottolengui, for he was closely associated with Kingsley and has used the jumping method for years. With the permission of Dr. Ottolengui an extract from this answer may be reproduced : “. . . I must confess to you that the operation of jumping the bite, so called, was one in which I lost contldence. I had many cases which appeared to be successful, and subsequently I had other cases which made me believe that the results, even when apparently good, would be only temporary. The mobility of the mandible led me at one time to believe that Dr. Norman W. Kingsley was correct and that with suitable plates the mandible could be compelled to occlude in its right position and that eventually this habit could be formed . . .,, TO refute the statement “that by the jumping method permanent results are achieved, ” I shall show three cases ; two of these are to be found in the literature, the third is from my own latest observations. one’s

*J. V. Mershon finding anything

(letter of NW: 1. 1963) : Sr . . like you but failure from that type of procedure

I have never . . . I’

seen

or heard

of any

The Crisis in Orthodontia In Fig. 15 we see a case of Dr. Angle’s to his p. 499) :

(7th edition,

which

corresponds

“Another plan of treatment to be considered is that introduced by Dr. Norman W. Kingsley, orthodontia’s greatest genius. . . . The Kingsley method consists in having the patient voluntarily move the lower jaw forward the requisite distance to establish normal mesiodistal relations of the opposing jaws. or ‘jumping the bite, ’ as he termed it, and then retaining the teeth in this position. . . . “The greatest difficulty to overcome in following this plan of treatment, is to keep the lower jaw forward and the teeth functioning in their normal relations long enough for the change in all of the tissues involved to become permanent For this purpose various forms of plates were resorted to, and as most of them were under the control of the patient add annoying to him, he frequently temporarily omitted to wear them, and this often brought discouragement and caused a large percentage of failures. In fact the di%cu&ies to be overcome in retention were so great that even the possibilities of suecess by this method were doubted by many, as strenuous controversies in the literature bear witness. Yet that it could be and was accomplished there is no longer any doubt. The author succeeded in the treatment of several cases, after this method, but only after devising the plan of retention shown in Fig. 512 [Fig. 1533 of this paper] and then only after the persistent use of the device for usually about two years. “The history of one of these cases, here described, is of unusual interest. The occlusion at the beginnnig of treatment is shown in Fig. 509 [Fig. 154 of this paper]. . . . The corrected occlusion two years after the beginning of treatment is shown in Fig. 512 [Fig. 15B of t,his paper]. The author was greatly gratified with his success in this case and believed it to be a most, desirable plan of treatment, as with it the full complement of teeth couhl be preserved and normal occlusion established, and it seemed the normal facial lines could also be established. “About three years after the discontinuance of retention, on examining the facial lines and the teeth of the patient, an important discovery was m&e, namely, that although the normal relations had been maintained between the teeth, the mandible had slowly drifted back to probably very nearly its former relations with the skull, but in so doing the crowns of the teeth of the upper arch had been dragged distally to a noticeable degree, while the crowns of the teeth of the lower arch had been tipped forward. . . . “Fig. 516 [Fig. 15C of this paper] shows a model of the case taken at the age of fourteen years which clearly shows the changes incident to the recurrent movement of the jaw. The position of the chin in its relation to the rest of the face also confirms the fact that the mandible has slipped back. “This discovery in this case led to the examination of other cases similarly treated, with the same results, so it seems probable that the plan of treatment first described (the use of intermaxillary elastics) should be regarded as the one most practicable and desirable for this class of cases.” (To

be continwrl)