Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:24 -0500
From: "ESCO automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Subject: ESCO Digest - 16 Apr 2007 to 23 Apr 2007 (#2007-40)
To: ESCO@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU

There is 1 message totalling 332 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:
1. Class II molar finishing

 

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:55:03 +0530
From: "Dr. M.Jayaram" <jmailankody@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Class II molar finishing


My dear Mark,

Actually we seem to be in agreement on most things: such as- 1. Malocclusion is not a disease, but a variation.Variation is the rule in Biology! 2. There is a new shift in paradigm in orthodontic diagnostics involving, function and dynamics, soft tissue and smile dynamics, transverse dimension not overlooked etc.etc. ( I had delivered a lecture in the National Post-graduate convention on these- can forward you the ppt , if you so desire) It is no more a number game! I am glad to note that you are changing. 3. One has to use judgements and discretion, especially in treating, mutilated, compromised, adult, difficult or interdisciplinary patients- choosing compromised goals rather than ideal or close to ideal ones. On the disagreement sector- 1. Basis of normal occlusion is not that of Angle, but Wheeler's textbook of Dental Anatomy-Pl. go thru the fig.4-13 in the latest edition. If you can visualise the same fig. redrawn for class II and class II, you will understand better. 2. Deviation from normal cannot be 'better than normal" in routine orthodontics.That's is to say, 'malocclusion is better than normal occlusion'!  You may please go thru my letter "Enigma of Class II molar finishing" AJODO-Dec.2004.for further appraisal. Nice to have your response and views. Looking forward to more of your innovative ideas.

Regards,
Jayaram Mailankody