- Email: [email protected]
Counterpoint
529
Readers' forum
trauma negatively affected periodontal tissues. They also stated, “Like most long-standing controversies, no one now believes that excessive occlusal force initiates periodontal disease, nor does any credible person believe that occlusal force is incapable of causing periodontal injury.”4 Oh, how I wish those leading the debate on the role of occlusion in orthodontics also could recognize the areas of agreement. In the quest to root out perceived “heresies,” we end up paralyzing any possibility of finding practical answers to everyday questions. J. Michael Hudson Decatur, Ill Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:528-9 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.009 REFERENCES 1. Martin D, Cocconi R. Orthodontic dental casts: the case for routine articulator mounting (Point/Counterpoint). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:8-16. 2. Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Orthodontic dental casts: the case against routine articulator mounting (Point/Counterpoint). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:8-16. 3. Harrel SK, Nunn ME, Hallmon WW. Is there an association between occlusion and periodontal destruction? Yes—occlusal forces can contribute to periodontal destruction. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137: 1380:82, 84. 4. Deas DE, Mealey BL. Is there an association between occlusion and periodontal destruction? Only in limited circumstances does occlusal force contribute to periodontal disease progression. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1381:83, 85.
Tone of January Point/Counterpoint
I
enjoy reading the Point/Counterpoint feature that you initiated a year ago. It’s an excellent addition to the Journal. As a general dentist and an orthodontistin-training, I find that these features offer helpful perspectives on topics commonly surrounded by fact, myth, and opinion that make them difficult to navigate. I appreciate your introduction to this feature, advising that “there are some controversial topics that could benefit from a timely, well-referenced discussion or debate, looking at both sides of the topic. This is the purpose of Point-Counterpoint.”1 It is indeed critical to get at the heart of what’s best for our patients, and an informed dialog is the way to do it. After reading January’s Point/Counterpoint on whether routine mounting of orthodontic casts is necessary, I sensed that the written spirit of each position (perhaps “argument” is the better term) was unbalanced. I
don’t claim a comprehensive understanding yet of either side of this debate, and so I currently enjoy my view from on the fence. But if the Point/Counterpoint features serve the purpose for which I suspect they’re intended—to examine both sides of a topic—I humbly suggest greater equity in terms of written length and tone of each case, so that the platforms are more balanced. The concept of Point/Counterpoint is excellent, but the structure sometimes leads to less than an ideal discourse. It seemed to me that Drs Martin and Cocconi2 (Point) were invited into the boxing ring without being told that they were in a fight-to-the-death match. I can’t help but suspecting that, if Drs Rinchuse and Kandasamy3 (Counterpoint) had led with the Point instead, the corresponding argument would have been similarly asymmetric. I’m sure this speaks more to the format than to the authors themselves and simply suggests that we need more refereeing in the ring. Since I know that’s what we strive for, our own publications should reflect collegiality. I believe the debate can be more cordial if the goal is to simply go “1 round in the ring” rather than seeking a knockout every time. Marc Yarascavitch Toronto, Ontario, Canada Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:529 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.006 REFERENCES 1. Kokich VG. Changing of the guard (editorial). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:1. 2. Martin D, Cocconi R. Orthodontic dental casts: the case for routine articulator mounting. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141: 8-14. 3. Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Orthodontic dental casts: the case against routine articulator mounting. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:9-16.
Mounted dental casts
E
vidence-based dentistry will probably never settle the use of articulators in orthodontics. I was not trained to mount models. One case convinced me to change: an innocent-looking, mild Class II malocclusion in an adult with a deep overbite. After the appliances were placed and the proprioception changed, the mandible repositioned into a borderline surgical case (surgery had not been discussed). I was able to finish the treatment without surgery, but it left a lasting impression on me. I began routinely mounting dental casts in the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2012 Vol 141 Issue 5
Readers' forum
trauma negatively affected periodontal tissues. They also stated, “Like most long-standing controversies, no one now believes that excessive occlusal force initiates periodontal disease, nor does any credible person believe that occlusal force is incapable of causing periodontal injury.”4 Oh, how I wish those leading the debate on the role of occlusion in orthodontics also could recognize the areas of agreement. In the quest to root out perceived “heresies,” we end up paralyzing any possibility of finding practical answers to everyday questions. J. Michael Hudson Decatur, Ill Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:528-9 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.009 REFERENCES 1. Martin D, Cocconi R. Orthodontic dental casts: the case for routine articulator mounting (Point/Counterpoint). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:8-16. 2. Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Orthodontic dental casts: the case against routine articulator mounting (Point/Counterpoint). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:8-16. 3. Harrel SK, Nunn ME, Hallmon WW. Is there an association between occlusion and periodontal destruction? Yes—occlusal forces can contribute to periodontal destruction. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137: 1380:82, 84. 4. Deas DE, Mealey BL. Is there an association between occlusion and periodontal destruction? Only in limited circumstances does occlusal force contribute to periodontal disease progression. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1381:83, 85.
Tone of January Point/Counterpoint
I
enjoy reading the Point/Counterpoint feature that you initiated a year ago. It’s an excellent addition to the Journal. As a general dentist and an orthodontistin-training, I find that these features offer helpful perspectives on topics commonly surrounded by fact, myth, and opinion that make them difficult to navigate. I appreciate your introduction to this feature, advising that “there are some controversial topics that could benefit from a timely, well-referenced discussion or debate, looking at both sides of the topic. This is the purpose of Point-Counterpoint.”1 It is indeed critical to get at the heart of what’s best for our patients, and an informed dialog is the way to do it. After reading January’s Point/Counterpoint on whether routine mounting of orthodontic casts is necessary, I sensed that the written spirit of each position (perhaps “argument” is the better term) was unbalanced. I
don’t claim a comprehensive understanding yet of either side of this debate, and so I currently enjoy my view from on the fence. But if the Point/Counterpoint features serve the purpose for which I suspect they’re intended—to examine both sides of a topic—I humbly suggest greater equity in terms of written length and tone of each case, so that the platforms are more balanced. The concept of Point/Counterpoint is excellent, but the structure sometimes leads to less than an ideal discourse. It seemed to me that Drs Martin and Cocconi2 (Point) were invited into the boxing ring without being told that they were in a fight-to-the-death match. I can’t help but suspecting that, if Drs Rinchuse and Kandasamy3 (Counterpoint) had led with the Point instead, the corresponding argument would have been similarly asymmetric. I’m sure this speaks more to the format than to the authors themselves and simply suggests that we need more refereeing in the ring. Since I know that’s what we strive for, our own publications should reflect collegiality. I believe the debate can be more cordial if the goal is to simply go “1 round in the ring” rather than seeking a knockout every time. Marc Yarascavitch Toronto, Ontario, Canada Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:529 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.006 REFERENCES 1. Kokich VG. Changing of the guard (editorial). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:1. 2. Martin D, Cocconi R. Orthodontic dental casts: the case for routine articulator mounting. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141: 8-14. 3. Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Orthodontic dental casts: the case against routine articulator mounting. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:9-16.
Mounted dental casts
E
vidence-based dentistry will probably never settle the use of articulators in orthodontics. I was not trained to mount models. One case convinced me to change: an innocent-looking, mild Class II malocclusion in an adult with a deep overbite. After the appliances were placed and the proprioception changed, the mandible repositioned into a borderline surgical case (surgery had not been discussed). I was able to finish the treatment without surgery, but it left a lasting impression on me. I began routinely mounting dental casts in the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2012 Vol 141 Issue 5