History of orthodontics
1
used and considered to be safe, but he seems to question whether, after cured, it contains less residual monomer than heat-cured materials. In regard to this, Rose et al 20 confirmed that heat-cured acrylic resins have, by far, better performance considering leaching of monomer and cytotoxic profile when compared with auto- and light-cured materials. Before we finish, it is proper to mention that, in this time of evidence-based dentistry, comments should be supported by scientific findings and not mere personal opinions. Be- cause we believe in Mr Lauren’s good intentions, the oppor- tunity to elucidate any points that might have been cloudy can only be well appreciated. Finally, we thank the editor for the opportunity to respond to the comments about our article published in the March 2006 issue of the AJO-DO. Tatiana Siqueira Gonçalves Mario A. Morganti Luis C. Campos Susana Maria Deon Rizzatto Luciane Macedo de Menezes Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:125-6 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.009 REFERENCES 1. Jacobsen N, Hensten-Pettersen A. Changes in occupational health problems and adverse patient reactions in orthodontics from 1987 to 2000. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:591-8. 2. Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, Estlander T, Hannuksela M, Harvima R.J, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:83-7. 3. Allergic contact rashes. http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/ pamphlets/AllergicContactRashes.htm. Accessed on June 5, 2006. 4. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kanerva L. Gas cromatographic and mass spectrometric purity analysis of acrylates and methacrylates used as patch test substances. Am J Contact Dermat 1997;8:20-3. 5. Koutis D, Freeman, S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:203-6. 6. Giunta J, Zablotsky N. Allergic stomatitis caused by self- polymerizing resin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976;41: 631-7. 7. Fernstron AI, Oquist G. Location of the allergenic monomer in warm polymerized acrylic dentures: part I: causes of denture sore mouth, incidence of allergy, different allergens and test methods on suspicion of allergy analysis of denture and test casting. Swed Dent J 1980;4:241-52. 8. Hochman N, Zalkind M. Hypersensitivity to methyl methacry- late: mode of treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:93-6. 9. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2000,43:232-3. 10. Saccabusi S, Boatto G, Asproni B, Pau A. Sensitization to methyl methacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusion set. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:47-8. 11. Auzerie V, Mahe E, Marck Y, Auffret N, Descamps V, Crickx B. Oral lichenoid eruption due to methacrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:241. 12. Giroux L, Pratt MD. Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads in a (meth)acrylate allergic patient. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13: 143-5. 13. Ruiz-Genao DP, Moreno de Vega MJ, Sanchez Perez J, Garcia- Diez A. Labial edema due to an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48:273-4. 14. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K. Statistics on allergic patch test reactions caused by acrylate compounds, including data on ethyl methacrylate. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:75-7. 15. Kanerva L, Tarvainen K, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Succesful coating of an allergenic acrylate-based dental prosthesis. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:24-7. 16. Ruyter IE. Release of formaldehyde from denture base polymers. Acta Odontol Scand 1980;38:17-27. 17. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Kato H, Takagi N. Flow injection analysis of formaldehyde leached from denture-base acrylic resins. J Dent 1993;21:240-3. 18. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N. Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71: 618-24. 19. Kusy RP. Clinical response to allergies in patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:544-7. 20. Rose EC, Bumann J, Jonas IE, Kappert H. Contribution to the biological assessment of orthodontic acrylic materials. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:246-57. History of orthodontics I read with interest Norman Wahl’s recent installment on the history of orthodontics (Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 8: The cephalometer takes its place in the orthodontic armamentarium. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129: 574-80). I noted, however, that Rocco J. DiPaolo was not included with those who made significant contributions to cephalometric radiography. Approximately 40 years ago, DiPaolo introduced the quadrilateral analysis, formulated to differentiate between malocclusions of skeletal and nonskeletal origins and to identify dysplasias regarding relative size and position of the lower facial components. Essentially, it is a proportionality concept that is concerned primarily with the skeletal config- uration in a dentofacial complex in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, regardless of dentoalveolar relationships. By detecting any skeletal excess, deficiency, or postural position in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, this individualized assessment enables the clinician to institute the appropriate mechanics but also forewarns of any skeletal limitation that might compromise treatment. Quadrilateral analysis became an integral part of orth- odontic education in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Ruther- ford, NJ. Thousands of patients were evaluated cephalometri- cally, and many research studies were conducted, showing this analysis to be statistically significant. Chris Philip New York, NY Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:126 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.007 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2006 126 Readers’ forum
-
Upload
chris-philip -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of History of orthodontics
used and considered to be safe, but he seems to questionwhether, after cured, it contains less residual monomer thanheat-cured materials. In regard to this, Rose et al20 confirmedthat heat-cured acrylic resins have, by far, better performanceconsidering leaching of monomer and cytotoxic profile whencompared with auto- and light-cured materials.
Before we finish, it is proper to mention that, in this timeof evidence-based dentistry, comments should be supportedby scientific findings and not mere personal opinions. Be-cause we believe in Mr Lauren’s good intentions, the oppor-tunity to elucidate any points that might have been cloudy canonly be well appreciated. Finally, we thank the editor for theopportunity to respond to the comments about our articlepublished in the March 2006 issue of the AJO-DO.
Tatiana Siqueira GonçalvesMario A. Morganti
Luis C. CamposSusana Maria Deon RizzattoLuciane Macedo de Menezes
Porto Alegre, RS, BrazilAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:125-60889-5406/$32.00Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.009
REFERENCES
1. Jacobsen N, Hensten-Pettersen A. Changes in occupationalhealth problems and adverse patient reactions in orthodonticsfrom 1987 to 2000. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:591-8.
2. Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, Estlander T, HannukselaM, Harvima R.J, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactionswith dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:83-7.
3. Allergic contact rashes. http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/AllergicContactRashes.htm. Accessed on June 5,2006.
4. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kanerva L. Gas cromatographic andmass spectrometric purity analysis of acrylates and methacrylatesused as patch test substances. Am J Contact Dermat 1997;8:20-3.
5. Koutis D, Freeman, S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylicmonomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:203-6.
6. Giunta J, Zablotsky N. Allergic stomatitis caused by self-polymerizing resin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976;41:631-7.
7. Fernstron AI, Oquist G. Location of the allergenic monomer inwarm polymerized acrylic dentures: part I: causes of denture soremouth, incidence of allergy, different allergens and test methodson suspicion of allergy analysis of denture and test casting. SwedDent J 1980;4:241-52.
8. Hochman N, Zalkind M. Hypersensitivity to methyl methacry-late: mode of treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:93-6.
9. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylicdental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 2000,43:232-3.
10. Saccabusi S, Boatto G, Asproni B, Pau A. Sensitization to methylmethacrylate in the plastic catheter of an insulin pump infusionset. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:47-8.
11. Auzerie V, Mahe E, Marck Y, Auffret N, Descamps V, Crickx B.Oral lichenoid eruption due to methacrylate allergy. ContactDermatitis 2001;45:241.
12. Giroux L, Pratt MD. Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads ina (meth)acrylate allergic patient. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13:143-5.
13. Ruiz-Genao DP, Moreno de Vega MJ, Sanchez Perez J, Garcia-Diez A. Labial edema due to an acrylic dental prosthesis. ContactDermatitis 2003;48:273-4.
14. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K. Statistics onallergic patch test reactions caused by acrylate compounds,including data on ethyl methacrylate. Am J Contact Dermat1995;6:75-7.
15. Kanerva L, Tarvainen K, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Succesfulcoating of an allergenic acrylate-based dental prosthesis. Am JContact Dermat 1995;6:24-7.
16. Ruyter IE. Release of formaldehyde from denture base polymers.Acta Odontol Scand 1980;38:17-27.
17. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Kato H, Takagi N. Flow injectionanalysis of formaldehyde leached from denture-base acrylicresins. J Dent 1993;21:240-3.
18. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N. Leaching andcytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate fromacrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:618-24.
19. Kusy RP. Clinical response to allergies in patients. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop 2004;125:544-7.
20. Rose EC, Bumann J, Jonas IE, Kappert H. Contribution to thebiological assessment of orthodontic acrylic materials. J OrofacOrthop 2000;61:246-57.
History of orthodonticsI read with interest Norman Wahl’s recent installment on
the history of orthodontics (Orthodontics in 3 millennia.Chapter 8: The cephalometer takes its place in the orthodonticarmamentarium. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:574-80). I noted, however, that Rocco J. DiPaolo was notincluded with those who made significant contributions tocephalometric radiography.
Approximately 40 years ago, DiPaolo introduced thequadrilateral analysis, formulated to differentiate betweenmalocclusions of skeletal and nonskeletal origins and toidentify dysplasias regarding relative size and position of thelower facial components. Essentially, it is a proportionalityconcept that is concerned primarily with the skeletal config-uration in a dentofacial complex in both the horizontal andvertical dimensions, regardless of dentoalveolar relationships.By detecting any skeletal excess, deficiency, or posturalposition in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, thisindividualized assessment enables the clinician to institute theappropriate mechanics but also forewarns of any skeletallimitation that might compromise treatment.
Quadrilateral analysis became an integral part of orth-odontic education in the Department of Orthodontics, Collegeof Dental Medicine, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Ruther-ford, NJ. Thousands of patients were evaluated cephalometri-cally, and many research studies were conducted, showingthis analysis to be statistically significant.
Chris PhilipNew York, NY
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:1260889-5406/$32.00Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.007
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAugust 2006
126 Readers’ forum
