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.”