My Smart Library Page

This is how your text will look like after you have saved it on this website. The dictionaries will identify words and phrases for translation and show them to you by underlining and showing pop-up descriptions. To start working with your texts subscribe.
Martín Salvador D, Aznar Arraiz J, Mate Arco A, Iriarte Chantre T Article translated into English from the Spanish Orthodontic Magazine
Day after day, patients who had previously been treated with orthodontics come to our offices, requesting orthodontic treatment for the second time. The main complaint is almost always the same, «my teeth have moved » despite commenting that they had ended up with a «good occlusion». That should lead us to reflect, what is a good occlusion? What has failed so that the results obtained have not lasted over time?

Dr. Robert Little, in his classic 1981 article, after reevaluating 65 cases treated with extractions 10 years post treatment, observed that in more than 70% of the cases there was moderate to severe relapse (1). All will agree that this is unacceptable and that 70% is quite a high figure.

Possibly the answer to this instability of the results can be found in the editorial of the journal Cranio written by Dr. McKee, current president of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry (AARD). In this article he says bluntly «we must change the definition of occlusion.» He highlights the incorrect definition with which many dental professionals today understand the term «occlusion». He proposes to redefine the term, since there is much more than teeth, we need to take into account the joints. He says that by defining the occlusion and only taking into account the teeth, limits the ability to evaluate the articulation of the entire masticatory system (2).

Август 2020
Пн Вт Ср Чт Пт Сб Вс