Sheldon Peck1,2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Historian, The Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists.
Abstract
Background and objectives: From the beginnings of modern orthodontics, questions have been raised about the extraction of healthy permanent teeth in order to correct malocclusions. A hundred years ago, orthodontic tooth extraction was debated with almost religious intensity by experts on either side of the issue. Sheldon Friel and his mentor Edward H. Angle both had much to say about this controversy. Today, after significant progress in orthodontic practice, similar arguments are being voiced between nonextraction expansionists and those who see the need for tooth extractions in some orthodontic patients. Furthermore, varying concepts of mechanical retention of treatment results have evolved over the years which have been misinterpreted as enhancing natural orthodontic stability. Materials and methods: In this essay, representing the Ernest Sheldon Friel Memorial Lecture presented in 2016 at the 92nd Congress of the European Orthodontic Society, a full spectrum of evidence from biology, anthropology and history is critically discussed in the search for truth among highly contested orthodontic variables: extraction versus nonextraction, fixed retention versus limited retention, and rationalized stability versus biological homeostasis. Conclusions and implications: Conscientious clinicians should try to develop individualized treatment plans for their patients, and not be influenced by treatment 'philosophies' with untested claims in clinical orthodontics.
Background and objectives: From the beginnings of modern orthodontics, questions have been raised about the extraction of healthy permanent teeth in order to correct malocclusions. A hundred years ago, orthodontic tooth extraction was debated with almost religious intensity by experts on either side of the issue. Sheldon Friel and his mentor Edward H. Angle both had much to say about this controversy. Today, after significant progress in orthodontic practice, similar arguments are being voiced between nonextraction expansionists and those who see the need for tooth extractions in some orthodontic patients. Furthermore, varying concepts of mechanical retention of treatment results have evolved over the years which have been misinterpreted as enhancing natural orthodontic stability. Materials and methods: In this essay, representing the Ernest Sheldon Friel Memorial Lecture presented in 2016 at the 92nd Congress of the European Orthodontic Society, a full spectrum of evidence from biology, anthropology and history is critically discussed in the search for truth among highly contested orthodontic variables: extraction versus nonextraction, fixed retention versus limited retention, and rationalized stability versus biological homeostasis. Conclusions and implications: Conscientious clinicians should try to develop individualized treatment plans for their patients, and not be influenced by treatment 'philosophies' with untested claims in clinical orthodontics.
Authors: Maciej Jedliński; Marta Mazur; Krzysztof Schmeidl; Katarzyna Grocholewicz; Roman Ardan; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 3.623