WikiProject Dentistry	(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)	DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Dentistry portal v • d • e This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Question about contents page 2 Looking for information on ancient times 3 POV 4 RFC 5 see also links 6 Fair warning to prospective patients 7 2 things 8 Neutrality of Article

[edit] Question about contents page

How in the world do you create a contents page? I thought the ==section== tag would automatically create a contents page.

[edit] Looking for information on ancient times

I'm wondering how people treated bad orthodontia problems in ancient times when they used things like traditional Chinese medicine and accupuncture? DyslexicEditor 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit too long and technical? Maeglin 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is strongly biased. The user Dr. Georg Risse inserted a vast amount of information which is not backed by sufficient evidence. He also added links to his own website as well as to that of his company.

212.240.16.7 15:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Dear colleges!

Would you please regard the discussion in the german article de:Kieferorthopädie. The user Dr. Risse is permanently trying to place advertisments for his company in the articel.

Greetings -- Andreas Werle 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm wrong but Dr Risse almost singlehandedly made this article. Before his additions it was a pretty worthless article, but now it is full of information. Billyb 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not wrong. He wrote a lot. Unfortunately what he wrote is his very personal opinion about orthodontics. Dr. Risse claims that common orthodontic methods are wrong. He insists that in order to avoid harming patients it is neccessary to adopt the concepts developed by him and his company. He failed to provide evidence for these concepts. He had to fail because there is no clinical study proving his point. Dr. Risse is a german orthodontist whose comments and concepts are not confirmed by any orthodontic faculty. Neither in germany nor elsewhere. In this article he put himself in a position equal to Angle and Andrews, which frankly is not where he belongs. If article length is what matters then this article is fine but sadly this article is filled with misleading information forged to support Dr. Risse's company. 81.219.62.100 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been tagged "disputed". Much of the text is self-serving philosophical views from Dr. Risse, and are not based on clinical evidence or studies. This article is currently not 'encyclopedic' neutral and is extremely biased. This article needs to be heavily edited and cleaned-up. It is poorly structured and needs to be wikified. To begin with, everything involving BFO should almost entirely be deleted. It is not a part of mainstream orthodontics. Most external links are related to Dr. Risse's personal interests and should be removed.

---

The article of Dr. Risse is definitely not a personal opinion. Each single postulation in this article is documented among other things by the literature of evidence based theories of official Anatomy and Evolution. The problem is, that central findings of Andrews on 120 plaster models and in this context with straight wires are in opposition to the evidence based theory of official anatomy. This of course is a threat for Straight-wire-techniques. The theory of official functional anatomy opens a bright spectrum for orthodontic treatments, stability and aesthetics. As official anatomy is in prime evidence, each patient has to be informed about it and about different treatment goals of straight wire anatomy.

Welcome to this discussion, Dr. Risse. Your postulations are only documented by yourself.

Where are the universities teaching your theories?

Which textbooks (not written by yourself) share your point of view?

You can easily prove me wrong by providing an independent study about your treatment concept but there is none. It is not even proven to be usable in human beings. In the past you cited from various works but your theories were not even mentioned in any of them.

The only available independent report about your findings was commissioned by german orthodontics society in 2004. It quite clearly states that your techniques should not be used: [1]

149.9.0.59 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

@IP: full ack. See also the discussion in de:Kieferorthopädie. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Andy asked me ttoyuhtiyut9yiohyeuoy80rhyoptjfi0gn eriopy8ety5yo comment on the state of the article. It is immediately clear that Dr Risse, while expanding the article in quite a good way, has crossed the boundary into suggesting that his methods are better than "mainstream" ones.

To inform the debate, we need some information on how the profession sees Dr Risse's innovations. If they are a well-known school of thought (for which we would need evidence), they should be included. If not, there are probably notability issues with the innovations of one single practicioner. After all, this article is meant to describe how orthodontists generally practice in their field, not how it ought to be practiced according to X, Y or Z. A quick look at WP:TIGERS may be helpful here.

I would hope someone addressed the way citations are handled in this article, and it would be nice to have it Wikified a bit. Finally, the section headers are presently way too long - they go beyond describing the content on the sections. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

____________________

With the last comment the discussion is getting serious, but still there are essential misinterpretations of my article. I´m not introducing a new "treatment method", rather I´m presenting the complexity of the masticatory organ by means of official textbook theories, among others of the internationally accepted anatomist G.-H. Schumacher and international accepted theories of Curve of Spee / Compensations Curve in relation with orthodontics. They are basics for general medicine, general dentistry and evolution. Additional my article is presenting the theory of occlusal morphology of L.F. Andrews, which is the result of studies of 120 plaster models. The main postulations of this theory are in opposition to all textbook theories in this field, which is presented and explained in my article. The definitions of official anatomy are obligatory for medicine and jurisdiction. They are no private findings of Dr. Risse, they are officially accepted definitions, worldwide. On the other hand, the anatomy of straight-wire-theory is a personal theory of L.F. Andrews on the background of a study of 120 plaster models, fitting to straight wires. Do you think, that this is a representative sample for an evidence based theory for teeth angulations and functional occlusion, and are your intentions to inform the public of Straight-Wire-Anatomy only? A dictionary should describe the morphology and the complexity of orthodontics with functional occlusion of the masticatory organ. This was done by Dr. Risse by a bright list of international accepted references. Beside this coordination of literature a "private" addition of Dr. Risse in this article is the focus on "age adapted anatomy and teeth angulations" on the study of head plates, as an orthodontist mostly is treating young growing patients. These findings of "age adapted angulations" support official textbook anatomy even more.

Dr. G. Risse 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you are describing your reasons for believing what you believe but even if you were right you would still lack general acceptance.

Angle's and Andrews' works are generally accepted. They are being taught at universities. Textbooks are based on them. Your findings are not taught at any faculty. I hope this clarifies why what you say is not even remotely accepted.

This far we can say: Regardless of correctness your concepts are not generally accepted and therefore do not belong into wikipedia.

Now you are claiming that Andrews was wrong and that thousands of orthodontists who adopted his techniques during the past decades are wrong. You still failed to provide evidence. Citing from anatomy textbooks is no evidence for your opinion. Please provide an independent scientific study which proves you right. We both know there is none.

Finally Jfdwolff asked for information on how the profession sees your innovations. The German Orthodontic Society report mentioned above gives us a hint on that. As you once wrote yourself the profession refuses to talk to you.

However, maybe universities are wrong, maybe the profession is wrong and maybe you are the only one who is right and history will prove all this one day but we should really wait until then before we write your name next to Angle and Andrews.

69.56.216.142 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

____________________

Dear Anonymus,

the level of this dispute is: the evolution of 120 plaster models against official textbook anatomy, lectured all of the world. You asked for references, click here: (I hope you will be able to perform that)

| http://www.uni-rostock.de/fakult/medfak/anatomie/ProfSchumacher.htm

Dear Dr. Risse,

the level of this dispute is orthodontics as it is practiced today.

Neither the website behind your link which i actually managed to click on nor the book you refer to even mention orthodontics, let alone support your theory.

By the way: Aren't Andrew's teachings lectured on all over the world, too?

69.56.216.142 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

____________________

Your argumentation is absurd. Again, I do not have a personal anatomical theory except "age related angulations". I refer to the literature of official textbook anatomy, among others to G.-H. Schumacher. The official textbook theory of anatomy is the obligatory evidence based theory in dentistry! It is absurd to argument, that the theory of anatomy should mention orthodontics. Orthodontics has to rely on findings of anatomy for diagnosis and treatment objectives. The "Curve of Spee" and the "Compensation Curve" are internationally accepted conditions for a functional occlusion in general dentistry too. In denying them, straight-wire-anatomy of Andrews in orthodontics on the level of 120 plaster models is out of legality.

Dr. G. Risse 30 October 2006 (UTC)

____________________

I don't relish intruding on this heated argument, but the state of this article is inexcusable.

Perhaps the orthodontic profession has something important to learn from Dr. G. Risse. In any case, I am not offended by seeing Dr. G. Risse's name placed together with Angle and Andrews. But Wikipedia articles are not the place for challenging the status quo. Orthodontics is just not practiced the way that Dr. G. Risse wants it to be and the arguments advanced in his favor take up much more of the article than necessary. Remember that NPOV (neutral point of view) must guide all articles. See also what Wikipedia is not.

I am therefore giving the article a much needed cleanup.

--Hanina

[edit] see also links

may i ask why the U of Illinois at Chicago dental school is more notable than the others in ortho? also, for the lay person, a word or two about how fluoride therapy is related to ortho treatment would be helpful (braces makes you more susceptible to cavity and fluoride helps...etc.) Mct mht 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 3 links. They belonged to an individual practitioner who also sells orthodontic equipment and materials so they can be considered advertisement. 213.239.205.69 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair warning to prospective patients

As a young teen, I took elective orthodontic work because it was considered a normal thing to do, to have "perfect" teeth. However, I feel compelled to warn off against this particular piece of Americana: this is a serious undertaking. The article isn't kidding about the possibility of wearing retainers indefinitely, i.e. for life. Because my case was not serious, the orthodontist recommended that I not extract any teeth, and in all perhaps that was a good call. But at the same time, it also means that my teeth will start crowding at the first opportunity, leading to chronic aches if I ever skip wearing my retainer for a few weeks. Choosing to take this procedure can be a lifetime commitment: know and understand what you are getting into. Of course, I understand that some people have serious problems with their teeth (Austin Powers, for example) -- and I'm not saying you should avoid it all costs. But at what price, beauty? The problem is that in America most kids get this at an age where vanity often overrides judgment. This is really a decision that should be made as an adult, especially if the procedure is elective for you (teeth don't have to be perfect, and if there's nothing particularly wrong about your smile or bite, decide carefully whether it's worth it to lose a unique part of yourself for the sake of conformity). 146.74.228.241 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Most teens are minors, in which cases the decision lies with the parents or legal guardians, not with the "young teens." Good parents should take their child's wishes into consideration of course, and as a practical matter childen who refuse treatment will seldom be treated against their will. But this is not really the place for big-brotherly advice. Try My Space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 things

A. This discussion page is not meant to be a forum about the artcile's subject (so the arguments above shouldn't even be here!) If you want to argue about the effectiveness of one treatment over another there are pleanty of orthodontic websites to do that, but this is an article about the nature of orthondontics as it is practiced in the mainstream. Of course you can mention 3rd party sources that reccommend one treatment over another, but don't be offended when someone includes another 3rd party source referencing an alternative.

and

B. This article lacks a proper ammount of citations. I especially find this odd considering how widespread Orthodntics is around the world. Surely there are probably more sources than you can shake a stick at. But right now, just one? 75.186.111.99 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of Article

This articles focuses too heavily on only one (or I guess you could say "three") methods of orthodontic treatment. It does not give a broad enough base (overview) in the history, for full understanding. It is far too generalized. (i'm not saying to be overspecific, but to be "more" specific. There is only one definition of orthodontics given (and it is not sourced!) 70.61.247.31 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)