- Email: [email protected]
William Ernest Walker
ORTHODONTIC
PROFILES
W illiam Ernest Walker FOREWORD One of the important pioneers and founders of the American Association of Orthodontists, and one about whom very little has been written, was William Ernest Walker, D.D.S., M.D., of New Orleans, Lotisiana. In hi-s research for his boolc on the history of the American Association of Orthodontists, Wilbur M. Shanlcland, E&D., came up with some very interesting information abozct the impact that Dr. Walker had on orthodontics early in the hi&n-y of the Association. From Dr. Shankland’s text we glean the following information abozct the influence of Dr. Walker. H. C. P.
THE Southern Branch of the National Dental Association held its 1902 annual meeting early in February. A highlight of the gathering at the old Kimball House in Atlanta, Georgia, was the report of the Committee on Orthodontia and Oral Surgery given by its chairman, William Ernest Walker. Actually, the report is of greater significance for the early history of the American Society of Orthodontists; it represents probably the first detailed account of the Society’s charter meeting to be given personally at a meeting of the national dental organization. Because of its historical interest, the following selection from Doctor Walker’s pioneer publicity is given: . . . The year of Our Lord 1901 marked an epoch in the history of dental science in that it saw the organization of a society devoted to the promotion of Orthodontia as a distinct specialty; to be taught and practiced as such. . . . To the student of history of orthodontia there are reasons . . . (for its formation) . . . that are self-evident. . . . The history of orthodontia in our literature consists largely of descriptions of appliances . . . to meet special conditions-each case looked upon as an e;ltity, treated according to principles and too often in violation of physiologic requirements and hygienic conditions. . . . The specialty of orthodontia is on a par with the specialty of medicine in its various branches and the same marvellous advances will no doubt follow. And here we find the true reason for the organization of a Society devoted to the advances of orthodontia as a specialty. . . . Our best efforts can only yield the best fruit in strong, earnest, sincere, concerted action. . . . Dr. Walker spoke with enthusiasm and conviction, for he had been one of the ten charter members who had met in St. Louis the previous June to launch the undertaking. He concluded his account (which repeated generous portions 741
of Dr. Edward H. Angle’s prcsidcntial address) with a short digest. of the papers given before fhis new society. As might be expected, reaction to the news of the advent, of a spc1cia.lt.ybody was mixed. Names familiar to the dental historian, such as .J. Y. (‘rawford and Mark Finley, doubted the need for a new dental body of this nature. On tlrc! other hand, John I’. Corlcy, D.D.S., did not see why dentistry could not specialize like medicine, and added the following suggestive comment : When Dr. Walker wrote to me that he thought. tice orthodontia and asked me what I thought of the greatest evidences of progress to know t,he time is coming when we will be compelled practitioner have to devote to the study of a success of a branch, a man must devote proprr
of going to New Orleans, Louisiana, to pracof it, I commended t,he plan. I think it is one that we arc about to specialize in dentistryto specialize. . . . Tlow much time does a busy case of irregularity? Pot., in order t,o make a time to the study of a bra.nch. . . .*
Regardless of personal differences in opinion, the men at the Kimball House listened attentively to Dr. Walker’s message. IIis was an impressive name throughout contemporary Southern dent,istry and, in addition, he had been a recent president of their body. It is recalled tha,t at the 1899 meeting Dr. Edward H. Angle of St. Louis, Missouri, was present, representing the Missouri St,at,e Dental Association. As he also was strongly influenced by Davenport and Bonwill, which influence was very much apparent at the first meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists, Dr. Angle undoubtedly heard or heard about, .Walker’s paper with considerable interest. Dr. Walker was not only a great reader of the works of the pioneers in occlusion and articulation of the prespecialty years; hc was also art avid seeker of accuracy. As Dr. II. B. Washburn of St. Paul, a former president of the American Dental Association, point,ed out in recent years, it was while Walker was working with Bonwill’s articulator about 1893 that he discovered some errors in Bonwill’s original premise. This was a result of Bonwill’s unquestioned acceptance of a faulty definition of t,he path of the condyle movements that was in vogue at the time Bonwill began his mathematical studies of occlusion. At first Walker encountered opposition to his appraisal of the great Bonwill’s work, and, there was little acceptance of his own theory of downward and forward mandibular movement. By 1899, however, acceptance was growing. ,4lso, by that time Dr. Lute of the Harvard Nedical College had published some observations in the Boston Medical and Xurgicd Journal which tended to sustain Walker’s anatomic findings. Walker then went on to develop his clinometer. This was a device used to determine the condyle path of a patient, and from the record so obtained he would construct what he called his physiologic articulator, a forerunner of similar devices based on his methods of tracing condyle movements. t *Dental Cosmos 64: 943-949, 1902. twashburn, H. B.: History and Evolution 67: 223-237, 1925.
of the Study of Occlusion, Dental
Cosmos
Volume 52 Number 10
Orthodontic profiles
743
Walker’s work commanded the interest of his contemporaries. For instance, Dr. Leuman Waugh stated before a meeting of the Second (New York) District Dental Society in 1908 that Walker had advanced principles which were both new and conclusive and that his inventions were both an improvement on Bonwill’s articulator and accurate. However, he criticized the apparatus as being too complicated to come into general use and said that it did not establish the relations of the occlusal plane to the joints. * He repeated these observations before the 1909 annual meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists where they encouraged further discussion. i With his background in articulation, it is not surprising that the New Orleans orthodontist displayed independence of mind when, at the first meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists in June, 1901, he suggested an extension of the Angle classification of malocclusion.+ This suggestion, made in his paper entitled “The Ground-Work of Orthodontia Essential to the General Practitioner, ’’ called for a classification which would consider occlusal and facial requirements as inseparable conditions. He admitted that his attempt in this direction was not much of an improvement over the present plan, but he hoped that his suggestion would encourage a more critical review of prevailing thought on classification. Needless to say, he did not get very far. Prevailing opinion considered occlusal and facial requirements as separate and distinct; any attempt to consider them simultaneously only complicated matters. Rodriquez Ottolengui, who was present at the time, commented that he thought the Walker proposal was logical, although he admitted that he did not understand too well what either the Walker or the Angle classification meant. He regretted that no action had been taken on Dr. Walker’s proposal. Milton Tate Watson of Detroit, in his careful way, explained that the Walker classification incorporated abnormalities of the face and their relationship to those of occlusion into the already established classification, thereby making the subject very complicated and one on which even the men who comprehended it would differ. $ Thereupon, the subject was dropped, at least as far as Walker’s proposal was concerned, but there is a possibility that at least something might have been heeded. Dr. Lischer recalls that he was an invited guest at the time; perhaps this very discussion suggested some of his later pronouncements on classification and nomenclature presented before the American Society of Orthodontists in the years just before World War I. William Ernest Walker continued to serve the Society faithfully. At the time of his death from uremia in 1914, he held the important post of secretary“Waugh, Practical
Leuman M.: A Study of the Articulation of the Human Teeth From a Standpoint, D. Items Interest 31: 417-434, 1909. Minutes, p. 60, 1909; Transactions, pp. 40-61, tAmerican Society of Orthodontists: 1909. $Walker,
W. E. : In, American
$Watson, M. T. : Proceedings 139, 145, 1902.
Society
of Orthodontists
of the American
Book I,
p. 9, 1909.
of Orthodontists,
pp. 13%
: Minutes,
Society
744
Orthodontic
Am. J. Orthodontics October 1966
profiles
treasurer of the American Society of Orthodontists. He had quite an impact on the A.A.O. in its early years. Following Dr. Walker’s death, an announcement appeared in the first volume of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTIA to the effect that Dr. G. B. Crozat was opening an office in New Orleans for the exclusive practice of orthodontia. This proved to be a significant factor in the revival of Dr. Walker’s name as related to his skill in fashioning removable appliances in orthodontic treatment. Not long after he had entered private practice, it appears that Dr. Crozat, a graduate of the Martin Dewey School, had occasion to show Dr. Dewey some removable appliances made of precious metals, developed by a technique which he (Dewey) attributed, at least in part, to Dr. Walker. Considerable interest promptly developed, and papers were given and discussions were held. At the 1922 meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists, Dewey dealt exclusively with the subject in a paper entitled “Application of Spring Force From Gold and Platinum Removable Appliances, ’’ followed by a discussion led by Dr. Crozat in which Dr. Walker’s name figured to a considerable extent. For instance, Dr. Crozat recalled that early in his practice it was his good fortune to treat two of the late Dr. Walker’s patients. He noticed that they were wearing precious-metal removable appliances which accomplished the results desired. A little while later, Ney’s Elastic Gold came to his attention and he decided to try to copy the Walker appliance, although Dr. Walker had not been able to transmit his technique to Dr. Crozat before his unexpected death. Wit.11 this object, Dr. Crozat also combined the principles he had learned earlier when Dr. Joseph Eby had demonstrated the Victor Hugo Jackson appliance at the time Dr. Crozat was a student in the Dewey School. Dr. J. A. Gorman also participated in the discussion. He had taken over Dr. Walker’s practice and thus had seen a number of cases in which the apparatus was used. It was beautiful and wonderfully made and, by carrying out Dr. Walker’s principles, he made a number of them. Dr. Gorman believed in giving credit where credit was due and not,ed that all the appliances described and shown on the screen in the course of Dr. Dewey’s presentation embodied the principles of Dr. Walker, especially the elaw which was used mostly on the molar to grasp the tooth. Dr. Dewey concluded the discussion by saying that, because of the clasp designed by Walker and used by himself, Dr. Crozat, and others, when the appliance is removed “everything is off the teeth.” Apparently, Dr. German had referred to it as not being a simple device. Dewey challenged this in his characteristic manner, stating that it is about as simple as anything one can get and still be efficient, but one must first master the technique; “otherwise you think it is a complex appliance.“* The subject was revived at times following that memorable session. In 1951, for instance, aspects of the appliance were demonstrated before the Southern Society of Orthodontists by Drs. G. B. Crozat and 8. D. Gore, The audience was "Dewey,M. E.: INT. J. ORTHODONTIA 6: l-6,1920;
9: 501-513,1923.
Volume
52
Orthodontic
NunaberlO
profiles
74 5
much impressed, and many were inspired to include this type of work in their practices.” Did William Ernest Walker help build a specialty? The facts presented in this brief sketch tend to point to that conclusion. His research in the areas of articulation and mandibular movement provided the inspiration for others to carry on after it fell from his hands. His originality in the fashioning of removable appliances made them, as Dr. Kelsey once said, “unique and beautiful” and led to refinements that are in much use today. Above all, Dr. Walker was a faithful and loyal member of the American Society of Orthodontists in its years of origin and growth. Truly, his is a place of honor and achievement in the annals of its history. Wilbur M. Shankland, A.M., Ed.D.
*AM. J. ORTHODONTICS37: 67-69, 1951.
PROFILES
W illiam Ernest Walker FOREWORD One of the important pioneers and founders of the American Association of Orthodontists, and one about whom very little has been written, was William Ernest Walker, D.D.S., M.D., of New Orleans, Lotisiana. In hi-s research for his boolc on the history of the American Association of Orthodontists, Wilbur M. Shanlcland, E&D., came up with some very interesting information abozct the impact that Dr. Walker had on orthodontics early in the hi&n-y of the Association. From Dr. Shankland’s text we glean the following information abozct the influence of Dr. Walker. H. C. P.
THE Southern Branch of the National Dental Association held its 1902 annual meeting early in February. A highlight of the gathering at the old Kimball House in Atlanta, Georgia, was the report of the Committee on Orthodontia and Oral Surgery given by its chairman, William Ernest Walker. Actually, the report is of greater significance for the early history of the American Society of Orthodontists; it represents probably the first detailed account of the Society’s charter meeting to be given personally at a meeting of the national dental organization. Because of its historical interest, the following selection from Doctor Walker’s pioneer publicity is given: . . . The year of Our Lord 1901 marked an epoch in the history of dental science in that it saw the organization of a society devoted to the promotion of Orthodontia as a distinct specialty; to be taught and practiced as such. . . . To the student of history of orthodontia there are reasons . . . (for its formation) . . . that are self-evident. . . . The history of orthodontia in our literature consists largely of descriptions of appliances . . . to meet special conditions-each case looked upon as an e;ltity, treated according to principles and too often in violation of physiologic requirements and hygienic conditions. . . . The specialty of orthodontia is on a par with the specialty of medicine in its various branches and the same marvellous advances will no doubt follow. And here we find the true reason for the organization of a Society devoted to the advances of orthodontia as a specialty. . . . Our best efforts can only yield the best fruit in strong, earnest, sincere, concerted action. . . . Dr. Walker spoke with enthusiasm and conviction, for he had been one of the ten charter members who had met in St. Louis the previous June to launch the undertaking. He concluded his account (which repeated generous portions 741
of Dr. Edward H. Angle’s prcsidcntial address) with a short digest. of the papers given before fhis new society. As might be expected, reaction to the news of the advent, of a spc1cia.lt.ybody was mixed. Names familiar to the dental historian, such as .J. Y. (‘rawford and Mark Finley, doubted the need for a new dental body of this nature. On tlrc! other hand, John I’. Corlcy, D.D.S., did not see why dentistry could not specialize like medicine, and added the following suggestive comment : When Dr. Walker wrote to me that he thought. tice orthodontia and asked me what I thought of the greatest evidences of progress to know t,he time is coming when we will be compelled practitioner have to devote to the study of a success of a branch, a man must devote proprr
of going to New Orleans, Louisiana, to pracof it, I commended t,he plan. I think it is one that we arc about to specialize in dentistryto specialize. . . . Tlow much time does a busy case of irregularity? Pot., in order t,o make a time to the study of a bra.nch. . . .*
Regardless of personal differences in opinion, the men at the Kimball House listened attentively to Dr. Walker’s message. IIis was an impressive name throughout contemporary Southern dent,istry and, in addition, he had been a recent president of their body. It is recalled tha,t at the 1899 meeting Dr. Edward H. Angle of St. Louis, Missouri, was present, representing the Missouri St,at,e Dental Association. As he also was strongly influenced by Davenport and Bonwill, which influence was very much apparent at the first meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists, Dr. Angle undoubtedly heard or heard about, .Walker’s paper with considerable interest. Dr. Walker was not only a great reader of the works of the pioneers in occlusion and articulation of the prespecialty years; hc was also art avid seeker of accuracy. As Dr. II. B. Washburn of St. Paul, a former president of the American Dental Association, point,ed out in recent years, it was while Walker was working with Bonwill’s articulator about 1893 that he discovered some errors in Bonwill’s original premise. This was a result of Bonwill’s unquestioned acceptance of a faulty definition of t,he path of the condyle movements that was in vogue at the time Bonwill began his mathematical studies of occlusion. At first Walker encountered opposition to his appraisal of the great Bonwill’s work, and, there was little acceptance of his own theory of downward and forward mandibular movement. By 1899, however, acceptance was growing. ,4lso, by that time Dr. Lute of the Harvard Nedical College had published some observations in the Boston Medical and Xurgicd Journal which tended to sustain Walker’s anatomic findings. Walker then went on to develop his clinometer. This was a device used to determine the condyle path of a patient, and from the record so obtained he would construct what he called his physiologic articulator, a forerunner of similar devices based on his methods of tracing condyle movements. t *Dental Cosmos 64: 943-949, 1902. twashburn, H. B.: History and Evolution 67: 223-237, 1925.
of the Study of Occlusion, Dental
Cosmos
Volume 52 Number 10
Orthodontic profiles
743
Walker’s work commanded the interest of his contemporaries. For instance, Dr. Leuman Waugh stated before a meeting of the Second (New York) District Dental Society in 1908 that Walker had advanced principles which were both new and conclusive and that his inventions were both an improvement on Bonwill’s articulator and accurate. However, he criticized the apparatus as being too complicated to come into general use and said that it did not establish the relations of the occlusal plane to the joints. * He repeated these observations before the 1909 annual meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists where they encouraged further discussion. i With his background in articulation, it is not surprising that the New Orleans orthodontist displayed independence of mind when, at the first meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists in June, 1901, he suggested an extension of the Angle classification of malocclusion.+ This suggestion, made in his paper entitled “The Ground-Work of Orthodontia Essential to the General Practitioner, ’’ called for a classification which would consider occlusal and facial requirements as inseparable conditions. He admitted that his attempt in this direction was not much of an improvement over the present plan, but he hoped that his suggestion would encourage a more critical review of prevailing thought on classification. Needless to say, he did not get very far. Prevailing opinion considered occlusal and facial requirements as separate and distinct; any attempt to consider them simultaneously only complicated matters. Rodriquez Ottolengui, who was present at the time, commented that he thought the Walker proposal was logical, although he admitted that he did not understand too well what either the Walker or the Angle classification meant. He regretted that no action had been taken on Dr. Walker’s proposal. Milton Tate Watson of Detroit, in his careful way, explained that the Walker classification incorporated abnormalities of the face and their relationship to those of occlusion into the already established classification, thereby making the subject very complicated and one on which even the men who comprehended it would differ. $ Thereupon, the subject was dropped, at least as far as Walker’s proposal was concerned, but there is a possibility that at least something might have been heeded. Dr. Lischer recalls that he was an invited guest at the time; perhaps this very discussion suggested some of his later pronouncements on classification and nomenclature presented before the American Society of Orthodontists in the years just before World War I. William Ernest Walker continued to serve the Society faithfully. At the time of his death from uremia in 1914, he held the important post of secretary“Waugh, Practical
Leuman M.: A Study of the Articulation of the Human Teeth From a Standpoint, D. Items Interest 31: 417-434, 1909. Minutes, p. 60, 1909; Transactions, pp. 40-61, tAmerican Society of Orthodontists: 1909. $Walker,
W. E. : In, American
$Watson, M. T. : Proceedings 139, 145, 1902.
Society
of Orthodontists
of the American
Book I,
p. 9, 1909.
of Orthodontists,
pp. 13%
: Minutes,
Society
744
Orthodontic
Am. J. Orthodontics October 1966
profiles
treasurer of the American Society of Orthodontists. He had quite an impact on the A.A.O. in its early years. Following Dr. Walker’s death, an announcement appeared in the first volume of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTIA to the effect that Dr. G. B. Crozat was opening an office in New Orleans for the exclusive practice of orthodontia. This proved to be a significant factor in the revival of Dr. Walker’s name as related to his skill in fashioning removable appliances in orthodontic treatment. Not long after he had entered private practice, it appears that Dr. Crozat, a graduate of the Martin Dewey School, had occasion to show Dr. Dewey some removable appliances made of precious metals, developed by a technique which he (Dewey) attributed, at least in part, to Dr. Walker. Considerable interest promptly developed, and papers were given and discussions were held. At the 1922 meeting of the American Society of Orthodontists, Dewey dealt exclusively with the subject in a paper entitled “Application of Spring Force From Gold and Platinum Removable Appliances, ’’ followed by a discussion led by Dr. Crozat in which Dr. Walker’s name figured to a considerable extent. For instance, Dr. Crozat recalled that early in his practice it was his good fortune to treat two of the late Dr. Walker’s patients. He noticed that they were wearing precious-metal removable appliances which accomplished the results desired. A little while later, Ney’s Elastic Gold came to his attention and he decided to try to copy the Walker appliance, although Dr. Walker had not been able to transmit his technique to Dr. Crozat before his unexpected death. Wit.11 this object, Dr. Crozat also combined the principles he had learned earlier when Dr. Joseph Eby had demonstrated the Victor Hugo Jackson appliance at the time Dr. Crozat was a student in the Dewey School. Dr. J. A. Gorman also participated in the discussion. He had taken over Dr. Walker’s practice and thus had seen a number of cases in which the apparatus was used. It was beautiful and wonderfully made and, by carrying out Dr. Walker’s principles, he made a number of them. Dr. Gorman believed in giving credit where credit was due and not,ed that all the appliances described and shown on the screen in the course of Dr. Dewey’s presentation embodied the principles of Dr. Walker, especially the elaw which was used mostly on the molar to grasp the tooth. Dr. Dewey concluded the discussion by saying that, because of the clasp designed by Walker and used by himself, Dr. Crozat, and others, when the appliance is removed “everything is off the teeth.” Apparently, Dr. German had referred to it as not being a simple device. Dewey challenged this in his characteristic manner, stating that it is about as simple as anything one can get and still be efficient, but one must first master the technique; “otherwise you think it is a complex appliance.“* The subject was revived at times following that memorable session. In 1951, for instance, aspects of the appliance were demonstrated before the Southern Society of Orthodontists by Drs. G. B. Crozat and 8. D. Gore, The audience was "Dewey,M. E.: INT. J. ORTHODONTIA 6: l-6,1920;
9: 501-513,1923.
Volume
52
Orthodontic
NunaberlO
profiles
74 5
much impressed, and many were inspired to include this type of work in their practices.” Did William Ernest Walker help build a specialty? The facts presented in this brief sketch tend to point to that conclusion. His research in the areas of articulation and mandibular movement provided the inspiration for others to carry on after it fell from his hands. His originality in the fashioning of removable appliances made them, as Dr. Kelsey once said, “unique and beautiful” and led to refinements that are in much use today. Above all, Dr. Walker was a faithful and loyal member of the American Society of Orthodontists in its years of origin and growth. Truly, his is a place of honor and achievement in the annals of its history. Wilbur M. Shankland, A.M., Ed.D.
*AM. J. ORTHODONTICS37: 67-69, 1951.