Orthotown March 2018 - 24

message board
justinudm
Member Since: 09/29/14
Post: 21 of 26

Sounds a lot like the typical claims made with those that don't have science on their side. So,
you have managed to change the laws of physics and tooth movement in your practice? Show
similar cases you have treated with pre and post-treatment full records (superimposed cephs
included) like Fen has asked for or it didn't or doesn't happen. ■

12/20/2017

Fenrisúlfr
Member Since: 02/25/09
Post: 22 of 26

I would have to agree with Justin here ... you mean to tell me all the research disproving these
so-called "theories" is false? That sounds self-serving, and it beggars belief.
If we are purported to be a scientific specialty, we need to behave as such. Personal experience is
often misleading, and rife with bias which is why we rely on science. The plural of anecdote is not
data and, in general, expert opinion/case reports are the lowest level of evidence. There is simply
no basis for these claims, especially when they have been repeatedly debunked by high-quality
studies, including RCTs. ■
12/20/2017

JohnnySS
Member Since: 10/18/13
Post: 23 of 26

I have no dog in this fight. I am simply suggesting and communicating my experience.
And science is a process-not a monolith of "truth." Science is one thing, a person's experience
is another, but related. Science is not a judge and jury of "truth." Gathering, evaluating and
analyzing evidence is a process fraught with complexities, yet we all have to do that every day in
our professional lives to the best of our ability, without the support of "SCIENCE" as an arbiter of
reality. We each must perform that task to the best of abilities, with established orthodox science
as a guide, but that orthodoxy is always several steps behind the leading edge.
Superimposed cephalometric films are nice to have, but the excess and unnecessary radiation
for non-diagnostic purposes (for that patient) cannot be justified. I will post photographs in the
future, when I am able. I am not selling anything. I am not telling anyone they are doing it "wrong."
I intend no offense to those who are skeptical of my and others' claims. I was very skeptical
of PSL until I saw other people's results and later saw the same things in my own practice. I
personally don't use clear aligners because I am unwilling (so far) to learn their limitations and
their demands. They are a tool just as PSL is and all tools have unique features. Nothing is magic.
My own father was an orthodontist and his partner thought the profession was going to hell
when preformed bands came along.
I have a great deal of respect for my dental and orthodontic colleagues. We have a tough but
rewarding gig. I was simply trying to add to a discussion with a different perspective. Take from
it what you will. ■

12/20/2017

Fenrisúlfr
Member Since: 02/25/09
Post: 24 of 26

There has to be a method to verify what actually occurred and that is why ceph numbers/
superimpositions, etc., are really the standard. All results need to be critically evaluated, quantified
and not just taken at face value. That, IMO, is what comprises a thorough evaluation. Some of
these analogies are nice, but not really accurate ... ■
12/20/2017

charlestonbraces
Member Since: 06/05/09
Post: 25 of 26

So, I got the letter back from periodontist regarding his opinion on the long-term prognosis
of the lower incisors. I am now leaning to non-ex with IPR in the upper and extract LL2.
[Editor's note: This text is a message from the periodontist to "charlestonbraces."]
"From a periodontal standpoint, 24, 25, 26 all seem to be about the same. Our probing
depths have consistently been in the 2-3mm range. The teeth are so crowded that there is not a
lot of bone interproximally. #23 has been consistent but it is so far labially erupted that there is
a significant recession. If you feel that you can retract the tooth into the mandible, I can correct the

MARCH 2018 // orthotown.com

http://www.orthotown.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Orthotown March 2018