In any profession or any field of endeavor, questions may arise from time to time, which need to be resolved. The more fundamental or basic the nature of the question, the greater the need for rapid solution.Occasionally a question may arise which evokes opposite opinions from equally authoritative sources. In such a case it may take years to resolve the question. In dealing with these questions, we are not so much concerned about whether we are right or wrong -- we are searching for truth.
As most orthodontists are aware, Dr. Arne Bjork, Copenhagen, Denmark conducted some very basic and important research involving the implanting of metallic landmarks in the jaws. Then cephalometric radiograms were taken over an extended period of time.
As is well known, the research was reported in the AJO in 1972 under the title of Bjork A., and Skeiller V., Facial Development and Tooth Eruption: An Implant Study at the Age of Puberty, Am. Journal of Orthod, 1972;62:339-83.
In the Feb. 1996 issue of the AJO, Fred Schudy, 804 West Friar Tuck Lane, Houston, Tex. USA, published the results of an in depth study of Dr. Bjork's 1972 article. In this report Schudy pointed out where he thought that Dr. Bjork had made an incorrect interpretation of his research.
If there is someone out there who can give an opinion one way or the other, it would be greatly appreciated. This is a very serious subject with the author and there is intense interest in seeing it resolved.
In the time since Schudy's publication to the present time, no one (who would want to be quoted) has expressed an opinion one way or the other. The work of Dr. Bjork was widely and readily accepted world wide. There has been no objection to any part of the 1972 article, in the last twenty five years. Since the research was so widely and readily accepted, why is the world so reluctant to express an opinion about a counter published opinion?
It is hoped that we may be able to lead orthodontists everywhere to consider expressing their opinions on this difference of published opinion. Also, we hope that many graduate orthodontic departments will wish to join in a common search for truth.
What is needed, is to select just one patient for a research study. (While more is better, only one patient should shed much light on this question). This patient should be a very low angle class two division two, and a male age 10 to 11.
There should be implanted in the lower jaw three metallic landmarks -- one at the center of the lower border of the symphysis and one at each gonion angle. The implants at the gonion angles should be different sizes. The larger one should be placed on the side away from the film. By placing the implants as far away from each other as possible antereoposteriously, it will make measuring more accurate.
After a six-year study of serial cephalometric radiograms we well know how much resorption occurs at the lower border of the mandible. We will know how much lower molars and incisors change with relation to their bases. In addition, we will know whether the fossa-gonion distance increase equals the implant condylar growth.
It is hoped that this gentle persuasion will encourage orthodontists everywhere to express their opinions.
Return to the Index of Articles
Return to Dr. Schudy's Home Page
site design by web designs of houston
powered by triplecrown server atvirtual servers for business on the web