Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Islandsandmirrors

Traditional Orthodontics Exposed (Part 1)

Recommended Posts

Before I state my evidence on the matter of malocclusion (bad bite) let me begin by stating my hypothesis on why bad bites form, which has been backed-up by pinoneers such as John Mew.

We've been told by traditional orthodontics that "genetics" is the reason we experience various malocclusions in this world, such as cross bites, Class II (commonly known as "buck teeth"), and anterior and posterior open bites as to just state a few examples. However, if one were to study the history of malocclusion, such as the study of the ancient skull in comparison to our modern one, like in this picture here:

pintubimodern3.jpg

(Right - modern skull, left - ancient skull.)

It would be evident that malocclusion is only a recent issue that has only become a problem within the start of the industrial revolution. In the last 200-300 years has malocclusion become rampant and normal in society, which is far too early for our genes to make such a dramatic shift.

Therefore, malocclusion is based on three or more environmental factors:

- improper oral posture (more on that later.)

- the increase of vertical growth as opposed to horizontal (more on this later)

- mouth breathing

- traditional ortho which pull everything back instead of forward (this problem gets worse if the patient is treated with extractions)

- soft modern diet

- allergies 

- being bottle fed as a child

 

These, and more, increase the enlongation of the face, and therefore, makes a face look less pleasing to the eye.

 

What is proper oral posture?

traditional orthos (the ones who primarily use retractive methods such as headgears, excessive power chains, extractions, etc.) will tell you that proper oral posture at rest is "lips together, teeth apart." However, this is a vague statement which may be confusing to the patient and detrimental to the facial growth of the child.

Proper oral posture, in fact, is when the tongue is plastered to the roof of the mouth and that teeth is slightly apart at rest or just lightly touching. This increases horizontal (forward) growth of the jaws which improve the airway, little to non-TMD issues, aligned bite, more attractive face and profile. It is said that keeping the tongue on the roof of the mouth allows the natural growth of both jaws in a growing child that will eliminate any sort of surgery if prevented in the future. 

The proof is in John and his son Mike Mew's results, which use a different method called orthotropics and the results speak for themselves. Here's a segment on Dispatches:

 

Why we find models so attractive:

What makes an attractive face? Similarly what makes a face unattractive?

Before I delve into this, I will admit that traditional orthos prefer vertical growth and flatter faces in general, whereas the general public and often times, the patient themselves, prefer fuller faces, which in pronounced cheeks and stronger jaw bones are present.

Many of your favored models and actors have horizontal growth, which is an indicator of a person with good health, something we are biologically hard-wired to desire in friends and in romantic relationships. 

(Note: I will post pictures of female models and male models for solely educational purposes. My aim is to compare and contrast, in this section, the differences between vertical and horizontal growth in humans and their effects on the profile. So, if any mods see this post, please do not remove the images as they are essential for making my point.)

Horizontal growth, as noted by the strong jaw line, tongue on the palate, wide smiles, and prominent cheekbones:

Julia.jpg

shanina_shaik_backstage_at_just_cavalli_

 

This type of facial beauty is not just reserved for models or the case of "blessed genetics" at all. Rather, the two pictures stated above have proper oral posture at rest, which is what gives someone their defined bone structure. Note the lip seal without strain. Here's an example of a girl who used "growth guidance" by John Mew, which allows the posture and size of jaws to become altered and expanded, without extractions, and without fixed braces, and without retainers and without surgery. Both jaws are encouraged to grow forward and here's the result:

biobloc.png

 

Here's an example of vertical growth by a traditional ortho in comparison with horizontal growth.

 

 

 

 

Part 2: to come soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I dont really get this? Are you showing that people with certain bone structures are better looking or that there is a difference in skeletons from the past and today or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muhajir said:

lol I dont really get this? Are you showing that people with certain bone structures are better looking or that there is a difference in skeletons from the past and today or what?

All of the above. 

Horizontal (forward) is more attractive than vertical growth. Horizontal growth was not an abnormality in the past, and vertical growth is only a recent issue. 

Everyone in the past had forward growth, and room for all teeth. Model-like beauty and facial development was not a rarity, as seen by the skeletial growth of both the maxilla and mandible in the first picture.

My point in all of this is traditional orthos just yank out a bunch of teeth without taking the airway, the bone structure, the profile, the TMJ joints into consideration. Their objective is not make your face how it should be had you received emphasis on oral posture and expansion, but rather their only objective is you to recieve straight teeth, even if it damages your face and TMJ joints in the future. This is especially true if you've gotten extractions, which causes major adverse side effects like narrow jaw line, receding chins, "dished in" lips and overall profile. 

And yes, absolutely, I am saying that people with more forward growth (due to correct oral posture and lip seal.) will always be considered as more attractive than someone who has more vertical growth from environment and traditional orthodontics who smash everything back. 

Here's another example. Most orthos would use headgear and braces when she was younger to pull everything back, and instead, she opted for the orthotropics method, which increase forward growth.

Sample-Image-86.jpg

Traditional orthos would not be able to create a face like this.

 

Bottom line, we all want faces like this:

horizontalcheekline_f_improf_210x294_f_i

 

Not this:

 

verticalcheekline.png

The line drawn from the eye to the cheek line indicates the type of growth, either vertical or horizontal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Muhajir said:

I think I understand now. So are you saying that dentists who practice orthodontics are bad?

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that many who have been trained to yank a bunch of teeth are not willing to step out of their comfort zone and embrace healthier alternatives. Many don't even inform patients of other alternatives like Orthotropics. It's the way they were taught in dental school and the methods that need to be changed. 

Some orthodontists are realizing this, and instead of using pull-back methods, they use devices to make room for all teeth. However, many don't want to embrace these methods because it would lead to:

- more time for the orthodontist 

- more dedication

- more work 

Many orthos are lazy and do not wish to make it hard on themselves, and therefore, prefer to stick to outdated techniques which do more harm than good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Islandsandmirrors said:

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that many who have been trained to yank a bunch of teeth are not willing to step out of their comfort zone and embrace healthier alternatives. Many don't even inform patients of other alternatives like Orthotropics. It's the way they were taught in dental school and the methods that need to be changed. 

Some orthodontists are realizing this, and instead of using pull-back methods, they use devices to make room for all teeth. However, many don't want to embrace these methods because it would lead to:

- more time for the orthodontist 

- more dedication

- more work 

Many orthos are lazy and do not wish to make it hard on themselves, and therefore, prefer to stick to outdated techniques which do more harm than good. 

oh I never trust modern secular scholarship 100% anyways, I could see why you would think that. I dont think they are lazy tho they are probably just doing what they know so maybe the better word would be that they might be ignorant of better practices or alternatives? Or its possible they know the better practices and alternatives but they want to make money so they dont use them because they might be free or cheaper. do you agree? I think it might be a mix of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muhajir said:

oh I never trust modern secular scholarship 100% anyways, I could see why you would think that. I dont think they are lazy tho they are probably just doing what they know so maybe the better word would be that they might be ignorant of better practices or alternatives? Or its possible they know the better practices and alternatives but they want to make money so they dont use them because they might be free or cheaper. do you agree? I think it might be a mix of both.

Some may be not familiar so when they hear about alternatives, they start to apply them in their own practice. Some are familiar but they don't care. 

They do primarily want to make money, you're right. Every time a new patient walks in it's an attempt to see 5,000-10,000 worth of work on the person's mouth. Do they reject or go ahead with treatment? 

Part of it is the "slick oil salesman" way of agenda and thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Islandsandmirrors said:

Some may be not familiar so when they hear about alternatives, they start to apply them in their own practice. Some are familiar but they don't care. 

They do primarily want to make money, you're right. Every time a new patient walks in it's an attempt to see 5,000-10,000 worth of work on the person's mouth. Do they reject or go ahead with treatment? 

Part of it is the "slick oil salesman" way of agenda and thinking.

Exactly you should know as you get older money becomes a big factor in people decisions but we should be easy on some of these dentists many of them are probably just trying to do their jobs but in some cases maybe some of their practices might be beneficial like if somebody needs braces or something because their teeth hurt, so their are positives in it as well and I dont know about the face thing and beauty its possible those pics you showed looked like that because the actual people looked better but I am sure there are cases where the opposite can occur where the other way also looks good. Also inner beauty and good character can make a person look better. My mom always tells me that my features and stuff look good but since my character is bad that makes me look ugly lol but my point is good character and inner beauty is actually what makes one look good externally in many cases. There are many good looking people at first glance but once you see their low character dont you notice that they start looking ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • NO, IT IS HARAM. SENDING GIFT TO HER AND CONGRATULATING HER FOR HER FALLACIOUS MARRIAGE IS ALSO HARAM.
    • Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib(as)   I have avoided the discussion of “The God” and aspects and working, so we do not get distracted and dwell in the realm( of Evil, Mercy, Love, help, present/absent, why does he not act, or why he/ she is silent, why allow all this, that is going on ) that is out of our domain for this discussion at this point in time. If there is a need, I(Layman opinion) will say, The one who  created me, doesn't owe me anything, beyond guidance. If anything exists it's the lack of follow through or rejection of the guidance. I.e. If the humans allow conditions to develop, and there is oppression. Where is God is not the question. Question, is Humanity has been guided at two levels ( inner and outer), rejection of both is the issue not why God does not take away this evil person that we elected or tolerated until he/she turned on us(we were fine up untill it was happening to others). We human need to do our job, instead of having entitlement mentality, and deflect it to it's your fault God., where are you and why you do not help. We have been helped. Intellect/Guidance( brief understanding, as a layman). Maybe not the best example but it will suffice, We would not expect the Mars rover to dwell in the realm of our working, instead it should be concerned with its prime directive, and we are to provide it guidance to accomplish its work. There are may misunderstanding, in  definition, version, understanding due to linguistic, terminology(old/new), cultural (East/West) and lack of Conceptual discussion at the basic fundamental level instead of technicalities and mechanic(which is subconsciously embedded in the way we have been groomed in schools and universities). A charged and contentious environment does not help in getting to any resolution. It's usually tit for tat, and pride get in the way in different threads a that were responding to targeted and side issue out of context. No one to the best of my knowledge and understanding denies we are limited creations in all  aspects. Your creation and Your surrounding creation(s) , are proof of something that  can not be denied. So, there is a Cause, the unlimited, infinitely powerful, Unknown/Unseen Source of all this. What you(non Muslims) call that source is not relevant - you can call it a system,  I call it God. So, there are no Atheists or Agnostic here. What an Atheist/ Agnostic may be, saying is that they do not believe in the God of Islam as “presented “or as understood or as described. That is a very different issue. But this issue, gets mixed up with other issues dealing with the mechanics in other threads which are on specific topics. Getting back to the Topic. We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:
      Stephen Hawking is a SME ( Subject Matter Expert) in his field of Study. If he gave his scientific theory and left it at that. I would not care nor it should be my concern, as there are many SMEs and have their theories in the Scientific world about may things.  His connecting it to and concluding that there is no need for god( his understanding of what god is to him). Is the issue, I am highlighting it not only because of what he said, because he or people like him are followed and the laypeople use these ideas to formulate their ideology. This is something, prevalent, using  fiction which they call ‘Science” as a tool to attack Divine Religion. This is where this talk and connection / implication that this is the god and of you can’t pray to or ask for help form gravity, or physical laws are not empathetic, and are cold  and have no concern for the humans ….This connection makes no sense. Comparing apples and oranges and mixing stuff that is confusing. This mentally is delusional and it stems out of misunderstanding of the concepts of pray, or help, mercy, etc..or implications that ignorant people believe in miracles and angels. Or we can’t carbon date the text, or evidence of such and such event. In short ignorant conclusions by apparently learned people in their field of study Trickle down effect, and the lay Atheists/Agnostics take these talking point and formulate an opinion and argument with it. Objectivity is also an issue, here. Double standards. Scientific theories are not subject to the same rigorous, and shredding mentality.   Its 5000, 2000, 1400 old stuff, we are Technically advanced. We forget that this advancement is in Technology,(only). The basic alphabet  in terms of Social behavior, is as old as the cave people.  Moving beyond, Mechanics, working, Techinacilities and this attitude of the best generation to exist, every preceding generation had the same attitude. and we will be looked at and our theories considers as old and outdated by the new generations.  Its a Point is time assessment.  What are the benefits of the revealed information- i.e Revealed to us through our struggle and study through discovery of us and whats around us.? Do we follow the Laws, derived from this new knowledge?  If not what are we rally arguing about. If a person can't even at least in Theory acknowledge the laws of Nature for our(Humanity)  Benefit. If you were to do that, you may rethink you position, because you may realize that you have been arguing against something that Natural laws actually prove.  This is what concerns me, at this point. Why can't the objective, learned and "technically" advanced people  see that and make this connection? Technical stuff/mechanic, of Biological change, next stage, or toasters, cars, bridges, space race, new medicine and quest of the common animal are of what consequence except for knocking a book or theory of descent or maybe some new medicine may develop form the finding. If the theory of micro evolution as marketed to support the a particular version of evolution ,  is inserted here, its argues that we will always be a step behind and they(Virus) will mutate, or accomplishing something making life better and having some toys and pride issues over other nations that we went to pluto..so what ?  How does this help us , solving the social problems of Humanity? (That is what Divine Religion is about).. Is there a comprehensive Social theory under development due to above technical advancements. ?  Is there a comprehensive Social theory out there? (maybe not to the liking of the people due to Nurture, but is there) To, me it looks like a willful denial of the Nature, a clash of Nature vs Nurture. People are finding any thing to latch on to stay free of any obligation/accountability.  Correct me if I am wrong, I am a layman, average person. I read , what is written by people , i assess and drive at a conclusion. So, I post to be criticized, constructive criticism. So, I can better understand and remove misunderstanding(s) to gain better knowledge.   
    • The nature of the Existence is to exist. Thats all.
    • If the father doesn't approve of it, and didn't leave the door open for further contact, then that's it. They are not being disrespectful. Saying "no" should not forcibly come with an explanation, thus you can't demand it nor force them to listen to you. It is called freedom, and that is more sacred than anything you can tell them.
×