Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:10 PM
From: "ESCO automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Subject: ESCO Digest - 20 Aug 2007 to 22 Aug 2007 (#2007-65)

There are 4 messages totalling 602 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Re: Ed O'Keef
2. Re: Headgear assisted by RPE expansion/contraction
3. Re: Headgear assisted by RPE expansion/contraction
4. Re: Archwire removal for cleanings

Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:11 AM
From: Diane Johnson <DHMJDDS@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Ed O'Keef

No, I've never heard of Ed O'Keefe, BUT, obviously his stuff works on you, if you are considering using his services.  I'm not being rude, just think about it.  You are (almost certainly) more intelligent and more analytical than the average consumer, so if Ed O'Keefe's stuff works on you.... Or, maybe it only works on highly intelligent and highly analytical people, who knows.

Diane Johnson

Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:35 AM
From: Dr P. Miles <pmiles@BEAUTIFULSMILES.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Headgear assisted by RPE expansion/contraction

Dear Scott,

There is an article by Dr Eric Liou of Taiwan in the JCO on this
approach with a modified expansion device (Toothborne Orthopedic
Maxillary Protraction in Class III Patients VOLUME 39 : NUMBER 02 :
PAGES (68-75) 2005. ERIC JEIN-WEIN LIOU, DDS, MS). It is a case report
format so no successive cases discussed. However, Dr Liou is one of our
keynote speakers in Australia in March 2008 for the Australian
Orthodontic Congress and he will be speaking on this topic in more
detail (for more information on the congress see ). My own cases, I have done similar to yourself
and my case numbers are too small to allow a decision about whether it
is any more effective than simple expansion alone.


Peter Miles

Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:14 AM
From: JMer1997@AOL.COM <JMer1997@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Headgear assisted by RPE expansion/contraction

Regarding Scott Smoron's query on Reverse pull HG and RPE's:

In Pat Turley's most recent lecture that I saw,  he presented some studies that seemed to show that RPE's are not necessary for success with reverse pull headgear.  (I believe that the department chair from West Virginia who is also very interested in class 3's shows similar data)  Dr Turley felt that age is even less important than first thought.  He feels that the most important factor is the amount of time it is worn, i.e. cumulative hours.  He actually has his patients on 24 hr/day wear and gets amazing results in just the first 3 months.  Older patients may just be less cooperative He also showed a 14 year old girl who was a flat out surgery patient who could never afford the surgery but really wanted the facial change.  She wore the headgear 24/7 for some amount of time (a lot) and the end result was nothing short of incredible, both occlusaly and facially.   Not may of us have patients like this, but it is something to keep in your back pocket when surgery is out of the question and the right patient comes along. My clinical experience in the last 18 months would agree with the finding that RPE's are not necessary.  They are often needed for transverse problems associated with the case but for me they are not necessary just for the Headgear to be successful.   They probably don't hinder the process but I wouldn't want one in my kid if it were not necessary.  (It will be necessary in my case, however, my daughter is 5 years old with a unilateral cross bite with a shift, all her mothers fault....) I have not seen anything on the expand and contract approach and given the above, it seems like it might not be necessary. Those were just a couple of things I wanted to put out there and I look forward to any comments or responses.

John McDonald Salem, OR


Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:41:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Archwire removal for cleanings

Removing arch wires for dental prophylaxis

Is this really worth a debate?

Just a rhetoric question in return to put the issue in perspective:

Does anyone also remove and replace lingual bonded retainers on a regularly basis to promote calculus removal and prophylactic cleaning of the lower incisor region?

However, this kind of appliance clinically much more interferes with easy access to the gingival and interdentally parts for professional prophylactic purposes, compared to a well conceived buccal appliance, for which the responsibility of hygienic care, never the less and still, lies in the hands of the patient, and not in these of his dental practitioners.

Peter De Wilde