Blog on Sunday February 2, 2012
By S. Jack Burrow, DDS, MS
Adjunct Professor of Orthodontics at UNC School of Dentistry at Chapel Hill, NC
Article Reviewed was written by Malcolm Meister, Professor of Orthodontics at NOVA University and Richard S. Masella, Associate Professor of Orthodontics at NOVA University.
Title: Differential moments: An anchorage system
This is an exceptional article written by Dr. Meister and Dr. Masella. They were critical of orthodontists that just expand arches regardless of the original malocclusion. They think this treatment is due to a “serious professional misunderstanding” of past research. They contend that the orthodontists that have this “mind – set” have rejected “time tested basic principles of orthodontics; resulting in a non-extraction treatment plan. When extractions would be the better treatment. They go on to say by disregarding science these practioners “condone undisciplined dependence of pieces of metal.”
They go on to state in their conclusion… “in addition to casual approaches to space management and anchorage, use of self-ligating brackets without arch and anchorage controls, and horseshoe-contoured preformed or unadapted archwires, are further examples of unrestrained treatment If the original malocclusion, or some responsible outline of a proposed stable position, is not entertained during treatment, and arch contour developed based on technician’s or manufacturer’s dream of arch form, then, whether the treatment choice is extraction or non-extraction, post-treatment stability is equally questionable.”
Filed under Uncategorized by on Feb 21st, 2012. Comment. 
Blog by: S. Jack Burrow, DDS, MS
Private practice orthodontics Charlotte, NC
Adjunct Professor of Orthodontics at UNC Chapel Hill
Research published in American Journal of Dentofacial Orthopedics
Titled: Orthodontic dental cast: The case against routine articulator mounting
Authors: Donald J. Rinshuse
Sanjvan Kandasamy
The authors feel like mounting dental casts are a disservice to patients. They feel that “specific condylar positions, slides, and the minute defects of occlusion are not predictive of TMJ disorders, that articulators do not simulate condylar movements accurately and that centric relation records do not place condyles in their deemed positions, than what are we actually trying to achieve by routinely mounting dental cast on articulators.” For these reasons, Dr. Rinshuse does not recommend mounting dental cast for diagnostic reason.
S. Jack Burrow
Burrow & Case Orthodontics
Filed under Blog by on Feb 7th, 2012. Comment.
By: S. Jack Burrow
Private practice orthodontics Charlotte, NC
Adjunct Professor of Orthodontics at UNC Chapel Hill
Research published in American Journal of Dentofacial Orthodedics
Title: Duration of Treatment and Occlusal Outcome Using Damon3 Self-ligated and Conventional Orthodontic Bracket Systems in Extraction Patients: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.
Authors: A.T. Dibose, I.H. Nusr,et al.
Manufactures of self-ligating brackets and some orthodontists claim that the Damon3 bracket system results in reduced treatment time and reduced number of visits. This research was conducted to see if the claims were supported by research or if just marketing claims.
Research Model: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial consisting of 48 patients undergoing comprehensive orthodontics. The objective was to compare Damon3 brackets with conventional edgewise brackets in terms of overall treatment time, number of visits and final result using the peer assessment rating index (PAR).
Result: The bracket system used had no effect on overall treatment time, number of visits or differences in PAR.
Conclusion: The use of Damon 3 Bracket systems was not more efficient nor resulted in better outcomes than conventional brackets.
This is more research that agrees with previous studies that have come to the same conclusion, i.e., Damon brackets are not more efficient than conventional brackets. This is just one more research paper that reminds us that we need to continue scientific research to evaluate claims that are not valid.
Filed under Blog by on Feb 7th, 2012. Comment.
Blog
May, 3, 2011
By: S. Jack Burrow
Journal: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008:134:430-438, Miner RV., published an investigation studying stability of orthodontics.
Past research has revealed that proper dental arch form is the criteria for orthodontic stability, i.e., the arch should not be constricted or expanded beyond an individual’s limit.
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the dental arch form and the supporting bone.
Results – There is a large range of arch forms, i.e., there are large people and small people and the size of the dental arch is just as varied. They found a statistically significant positive relationship between dental and basal arch forms, which supports the concept of positioning teeth over the apical base. The large individual variation suggests that there is no ideal arch form that fits all sizes / individuals. Each arch (individual) has its own form so the orthodontist needs to be cognizant and shape his wire accordingly.
Conclusions: Arch forms for each patient are individual and the orthodontist needs to position the teeth over basal bone.
Comments: Some philosophies support the idea that a certain system or bracket will allow the orthodontist to expand the teeth beyond basal arch form limits. This research found a high correlation between dental arch form and apical base arch form which implies that if a patient is crowded it’s not a good idea to expand the arches beyond the basal arch form… if expanded then the teeth will not be stable. – i.e., the teeth will relapse.
Filed under Blog by on May 5th, 2011. Comment.
Blog
S. Jack Burrow
Orthodontics has always been burdened by relapse, i.e., rotated teeth moving back toward it’s original position after orthodontics. Lovatta et al, designed an investigation to study this problem (Aust Orthod J 2008; 24 (May):5-9) Their objective was to compare the orientations of the supercryestal fibers attached to recently emerged teeth that has been rotated. They concluded that early rotations of teeth (in clinical terms – Phase I) did not provide stability to the rotation of teeth. This investigation seems to tell us that the supercryestal fibers attach to the teeth very early in the eruption process. From a clinical standpoint it appears that aligning teeth early (Phase I) to avoid relapse may not be warranted and is probably an extra expense for the family
Filed under Blog by on Apr 13th, 2011. Comment.