Myths of orthodontic gnathology

Abstract

D r Beverly McCollum established the Gnathologic Society in 1926. Gnathology is defined as ‘‘the science that treats the biology of the masticatory mechanism as a whole: that is, the morphology, anatomy, histology, physiology, and the therapeutics of the jaws or masticatory system and the teeth as they relate to the health of the whole body, including applicable diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitation procedures.’’ Many gnathologic research endeavors have added much to our knowledge and understanding of the stomatognathic system, particularly those involving chewing (masticatory) kinematics and the early intraoral telemetry studies (to cite only a few). Although originally founded on scientific principles, the application of the valid gnathologic research to clinical practice has moved away from these founding tenets. Modern clinical gnathology (vs university-based gnathologic research) has become, for the most part, a pseudo-science based on mechanistic, perfunctory procedures, and instrumentation. There are many contemporary occlusal institutes that clearly have perverse views on gnathology that are not evidence-based. Dr Lysle Johnston sarcastically stated that ‘‘gnathology is the science of how articulators chew.’’ In the 1970s, Roth formally introduced the classic principles of clinical gnathology to orthodontics (orthodontic gnathology). The notions and considerations of modern orthodontic gnathology are not based on principles of science and do not correspond to contemporary evidence-based thinking. There might not be a unified orthodontic gnathologic view, but it seems that the one established by Roth is by far the most notable.