Why orthodontics is bad?

Orthodontic treatment is associated with a number of adverse effects, including root resorption, pain, pulp changes, periodontal disease, and temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Orthodontists should be aware of these effects and the associated risk factors.

Why orthodontics is bad?

Orthodontic treatment is associated with a number of adverse effects, including root resorption, pain, pulp changes, periodontal disease, and temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Orthodontists should be aware of these effects and the associated risk factors. Research has now shown that orthodontic movement of teeth through the constant force of the braces will cause root damage in almost 100% of patients. This means that part of the roots dissolve with orthodontic treatment and, as a result, some teeth may be lost over time.

The use of intermittent forces and removable appliances has been shown to cause little or no damage to the roots. The animation in the image depicts damage to the root tooth caused by the braces. Poor hygiene is the main reason nearly half of adults under 30 have illness. In short, plaque and tartar increase bad bacteria in the mouth, inflame the gums, and predispose them to infection.

Braces make it harder to achieve good oral hygiene and worsen poor hygiene. These effects last much longer than the short duration of orthodontic treatment. Braces don't damage teeth by themselves. Poor oral hygiene practices cause damage to the enamel on the surface of the teeth.

Good oral hygiene should be maintained during treatment to avoid any problems later. But contentious criticism is fundamentally a “straw man” argument. In other words, the question posed is that beauty (such as love or health), philosophically speaking, is ontologically considered as a “first principle” Science is only a tool, not a “sine qua non condition”. Beauty per se is a construction that does not need scientific justification.

Orthodontic therapy has very little scientific basis. The same can be said of the “use of parachutes”. Over the years, Vig submitted letters to academic journals, lamenting the lack of solid evidence of the health benefits of orthodontic treatment and questioning what he calls “the prevailing dogma of orthodontics.”. He once testified as an expert witness in a lawsuit against a fellow orthodontist.

At one point, the American Journal of Orthodontics, now the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, for whom he was a reviewer, set out to reject Vig's own article because editors feared that the results, which questioned diagnostic efficacy and variability in treatment, were wrong reflected in the orthodontic profession. In response, Vig threatened to write an article on the ethics of orthodontic journals. When Undark contacted Undark, the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics declined to comment. But at the time, Vig had come to see the disagreement as yet another example of a lack of scientific integrity in orthodontics.

Vig had come to see the disagreement as yet another example of a lack of scientific integrity in orthodontics. Pierre Fauchard's “bandeau”, essentially a thin metal strip, was attached to patients' teeth in the 18th century. However, the ultimate goal of these treatments was not to prevent health problems, but to create a more attractive profile, said Marc Ackerman, orthodontist and medical ethics specialist in Boston. Norman Kingsley, considered one of the first fathers of orthodontics, was a classically trained sculptor.

During his day job as a dentist in New York, he applied his understanding of facial symmetry to patients' faces, diagnosing what he called “irregularities” and “deformities.”. It wasn't until the early 20th century that an American dentist named Edward Angle transformed dentistry's obsession with straight teeth into modern orthodontic science. In his treatise entitled “Treatment of tooth malocclusion”, Angle set out the precise parameters of a perfect bite, down to the millimeter. He based this ideal on the relative positions of the first upper and lower molars, which he believed should fit cleanly together, the crest of the upper tooth in the groove in the center of the lower tooth.

Any bite that deviated from this proposed ideal angle was considered a “malocclusion” in Latin for “bad closure”. More than 120 years after he poetically waxed on the “artistic harmony” of properly aligned teeth, Angle's concept of an ideal bite remains the basis used to determine if patients need orthodontic treatment. Orthodontists measure the overlap between patients' jaws, the width of their palate, the crowding of the teeth. These measurements are compared to the ideal ones and then classified according to how they deviate in the measurement.

Class I malocclusions are the least serious; class II and III malocclusions are the most. For parents, this referral carries the implicit message that treatment is “necessary and valuable to their child's health,” writes Bill Shaw, professor of orthodontics and dentofacial development at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, UK. Shaw argues that a dentist's referral to the orthodontist will initiate “an entrance conveyor belt to orthodontic treatment, with little or no reflection or discussion. Following the example of his medical colleagues, Spassov deepened orthodontic research.

When he found little to support the use of orthodontics as a preventive treatment for oral health, he was deeply concerned. In fact, he began to feel that the lack of evidence presented a “conflict with my professional and ethical principles.”. Clinical experience is one of the components of evidence-based medicine, Hujoel said, but alone it's not enough. Clinical experience will tell you that a patient can come to the office with crooked teeth and leave a few years later with a direct smile, Hujoel said.

But stating that changing the position of teeth has long-term health benefits “It's a great claim without clinical trials,” Hujoel said. As a professor, Spassov was interested in incorporating a more critical discussion of evidence into his curriculum. However, he said his colleagues dissuaded him. He says he was warned that incorporating evidence-based principles would confuse students.

According to Spassov, it's easier and less confusing to teach the same content every year. But that shouldn't justify avoiding the topic altogether, he said. Divergent evidence is “at the heart of science and research,” he wrote in an email to Undark. Orthodontists must rethink how they communicate treatment needs to their patients, Richmond said.

The website continues to list other risks of malocclusion without providing evidence. This is what it's like to fight a prevailing dogma with new evidence, Vig said, which is exhausting. “In an ideal world, those who make a particular claim must bear the burden of proof,” he said. Instead, that burden of proof falls on that minority of orthodontists willing to challenge the status quo orthodontists like Vig, Ackerman and Spassov.

Every time they publish an article that risks painting the profession in a negative light, every time they demand evidence for a lawsuit, they encounter resistance, Vig said. Tissue damage can cause loosening of teeth, infection, and pus (which can delay orthodontic treatment time). While continuing to teach orthodontics, Spassov began a dialogue with colleagues in the university's departments of history, bioethics and philosophy, and shared his concerns about offering treatment with weak evidence. As a result, most research simply compares people receiving orthodontic treatment, without controlling for other variables.

According to some orthodontists, this lack of objective evidence of health benefits is a cause for concern. If these payers decided that the literature does not support the medical necessity argument, it would be economically catastrophic for orthodontists. In the end, it boils down to the ethical question that what an orthodontist tells a patient is the reason they need treatment and whether this satisfies the principle of truthfulness. But just like with any other doctor, your orthodontist has some things that you wish you knew, but that they will probably never tell you.

Therefore, orthodontic therapy to achieve a beautiful face is, like rhinoplasty or breast surgery, a psychosocial imperative, namely. Angle's criteria gave orthodontists a measure that supposedly could identify which bites needed treatment and which didn't. Many go because they expect straight teeth to improve their lives, said Stephen Richmond, professor of orthodontics at Cardiff University in Wales. According to Greco, these types of studies are especially difficult to perform for orthodontic treatments.

The article cites studies that show that simple brushing and flossing have a greater impact on oral health than orthodontic treatment. Views such as those of Spassov and Vig are outnumbered by orthodontists who say their treatments are medically useful. . .

Margie Murayama
Margie Murayama

Typical web enthusiast. Infuriatingly humble zombie practitioner. Professional music ninja. Amateur tv scholar. Amateur internet advocate.

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *