A. The controversy about whether or not to extract teeth and treat them without tooth extraction has been in the early days of orthodontic treatment.Angle, by analogy with Aboriginal who has the Australian Pitex lineage in Australia, proposed non-extraction treatment, but his apprentice, Tweed, has a different skeleton assumption ( It was a controversy that tooth extraction was necessary.At this point, functional jaw orthodontic appliances and orthopedic appliances are not taken into account, and are simply based on the size of the jaws of each person. It seems that it was time to discuss extraction.At this point, there is a general view that there are things that are extracted and some that are not extracted, and this is still the case (change from the theory of Angle that absolute extraction is not allowed) ).

B. During the Second World War, Bjorg’s cerebral skull implant using the lateral head X-ray standard photo (same as the photo with constant distance and angle of view). As an indicator, the study of the insertion of a metal spear) showed a trend of facial skeleton growth (direction, amount, etc.) over time.Based on the results of this study (points that do not change much, which can serve as a reference point for comparison, and growth pattern recording), the usefulness of functional jaw orthodontic appliances (orthopaedic appliances) is verified. It was.

C. Currently, the theory underlying non-extraction treatment is based on the experimental results of functional appliances that have been verified since that time (although research had been conducted before this point, After the introduction of the X-ray standard photography, a useful measurement technique for comparative studies, it has been verified as scientific data.
This presupposed theory is called functional matrix theory, in which functional factors govern changes in the components of the form. Based on this, research on functional appliances has been carried out with the idea that if the functional factors are changed, the form will change, it is still ongoing.This functional matrix theory is almost 100% academically accepted, and there will be no objection. In terms of changing the form, academically, this can be countered by the manipulation of the form itself by genetic manipulation, but it does not deny the validity of the functional matrix theory.
Based on this logic, it is the root of non-extraction treatment to perform lateral and forward enlargement of the jaw.However, with the current orthodontic treatment technology, it is technically impossible to change the overall structure of the maxillofacial area except for surgical procedures (surgery).Partial changes are possible.Therefore, if the jaw is small, the treatment is to enlarge only the jaw. In other words, if you enlarge only your chin, your chin will appear forward and you will have a monkey-like face. In an orthodontic clinic that assumes non-extraction, it will be explained as an extremely average thing with racial characteristics unique to the Japanese. Or, the nose is low, based on the criterion of ethetic line (the tip of the nose and the tip of the lower jaw are connected by a straight object such as a ruler, and the lip is out of it, the profile of the profile is broken) Therefore, it will be said that the nose is raised by orthopedics, and the lower jaw growth is low, so the lower jaw is raised by orthopedics. However, it doesn’t solve the fundamental problem that the mouth is pointed, and it looks like it’s well-equipped at first glance, but if you look closely, the lips are still pointed.

D. Prospects for future orthodontic treatment If the jaw tends to become smaller, the number of teeth will be reduced by genetic manipulation.If the jaw is small, the jaw is enlarged by genetic manipulation.There are two possible ways. However, in the process of human evolution, the jaws are getting smaller. That is also the standard. With gene therapy, it is possible to return to the previous form (in terms of enlargement of the jaw), but can it be said that it meets the standard of the face at that time?
I think that this genetic manipulation will be the basis for future orthodontic treatment, but at the laboratory stage, there are many classrooms where the theory of genetic manipulation itself cannot be understood and that in the dental department it is not possible. However, now that human genetic information is being elucidated, the elucidation can be obtained simply by pattern matching analysis of genetic information. As a researcher, I would like to establish a treatment method based on an academic rationale as soon as possible.

Informed Concent (appropriate explanation from doctor and consent based on it), Ebidence Based Medicine (consent to proper treatment based on doctor’s accurate diagnosis materials), etc. In particular, in the United States, it was raised from a request by means of escaping a doctor’s medical malpractice lawsuit. (In short, there is only this danger, but do you accept or approve it? If possible, this is a contract that will be approved and treated.- Even if the risk recognized in the contract actually occurs, no objection is accepted except for obvious medical errors. ).Originally, the point of question was to ask doctors for explanations, get answers, and doctors to explain possible treatment methods and treatment results as much as possible. .

It is recommended that you consult and ask questions until you feel comfortable when you receive orthodontic treatment.