Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Science versus empiricism.

J Mew1

  • 1London School of Facial Orthotropics. john.mew@virgin.net

British Dental Journal
|October 26, 2005
PubMed
Summary

Orthodontic growth guidance is debated, with most dentists seeing limited impact beyond teeth. However, a minority believe significant skeletal changes are possible with orthodontic appliances.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Glove wearing: an assessment of the evidence.

British dental journalยท2015
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Dentistry
  • Orthodontics
  • Craniofacial Biology

Background:

  • The efficacy of orthodontic growth guidance remains a contentious topic in dental research.
  • A significant disagreement exists regarding the extent to which orthodontic interventions can influence skeletal morphology.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore the reasons behind the lack of consensus on orthodontic growth guidance.
  • To analyze the differing perspectives of orthodontists and general dentists on skeletal modification.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on orthodontic growth guidance.
  • Analysis of survey data or clinical case studies (if applicable, otherwise state 'theoretical discussion').
  • Examination of historical viewpoints and current trends in orthodontic treatment philosophy.

Main Results:

  • Most orthodontists believe orthodontic appliances primarily affect teeth and alveolar bone.
  • A notable minority, particularly general dentists, advocate for the potential of appliances to significantly alter skeletal form.
  • The divergence in opinion stems from differing interpretations of evidence and clinical experience.

Conclusions:

  • The lack of consensus on orthodontic growth guidance highlights a need for further research and standardized methodologies.
  • Clarifying the scope of influence of orthodontic interventions on skeletal development is crucial for evidence-based practice.
  • Future studies should aim to reconcile the differing viewpoints through robust clinical trials and advanced imaging techniques.

Related Experiment Videos