Why No Comments?
If the orthodontic profession is to make progress, we must be specific in our references to anatomical relationships; vague generalities have no place in our literature, and will only retard progress. Our writings have always been specific, always objectively illustrating all recommended procedures and concepts.
In late 1950s we, with the help of associates, conducted intensive research in the private office to determine where the basic growth increments are located and what effect these increments have on the positions of the teeth and jaws.
By 1960 we were able to isolate these increments and to determine their effect on the position and function of the jaws and teeth. This research was published in 1963, 1964 and 1965 in the Angle Orthodontist, and was discussed in lectures in U.S.A., Canada, Mexico and Europe. The research was presented before the biannual meeting of the Edward H. Angle Orthodontic Society in 1964, and before the annual meeting of the AAO in 1966.
This research enabled us to recognize and point out the importance of the vertical growth of the human face, and to suggest new treatment procedures and nomenclature to enhance the treatment of malocclusion. Before 1960 the vertical dimension of the human face had not been considered.
This research was continued until 1967 when my participation in the interim preceptorship program was terminated. All in all, the records of eleven hundred subjects were used in the research studies. Then, in 1970 my son, Dr. George Schudy, studied a sample of 72 subjects in a post treatment study for his post doctoral thesis. This was published in 1972 in the AAO journal. Also, after retirement, we did a 95 subject growth study in 1996. This random sample was collected from 1956 to 1970 in the private office.
Other than Isaacson et al., no member of academia has ever published a word pertaining to this research. No one has ever told me by word of mouth that they did not agree with any of the precepts. All of this research was conducted in the private office at our own expense, with no help from the government and no help from a dental school. The art work was done in the office and the statistics were done in the private sector.
I do not wish to be misunderstood-I have many, many friends all over the world who have expressed sincere appreciation and have used the recommended procedures with much success. This is not a criticism but instead an expression of appreciation.
We have tried to make a valuable contribution to our beloved profession-laboring with love and good will toward all colleagues and trying to be honest and fair with our fellow man.
The organizational aspect of our profession has made phenomenal progress and our leaders are to be highly complimented. We now have an international organization which apparently functions beautifully. I personally appreciate this as much as any member. While this is extremely important, still if the theoretical, the anatomical, the service and philosophical aspects are neglected, we have nothing to boast about.
If the scientific discussions covering a period of 40 years has merit, why has not a member of the academic community come forth with a favorable comment? If these discussions do not have merit, why has not a member of the academic community come forth with a condemnation?
The American orthodontic community readily responds to less important concepts, sometimes merely whims-while completely ignoring forty years of scientific discussions pertaining to the heart and soul of the philosophy of service to our fellow man. Again I ask the question, "Have we forgotten why we are orthodontists?"
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