The AAO meeting was quite amazing from a
technology aspect. I think the exhibit area keeps
getting bigger each year and there were a lot of
“incentives” from companies competing for your
visit to their exhibit area, including multiple
“happy hours.” After all, they were competing
with Hawaii for your time and attention. I was
anticipating winning either an iPad 3 or a
TaylorMade R11S driver… maybe they just forgot
to e-mail me.
Of course, CBCT was still leading the pack for
technology innovations, followed closely by the
iOC intra-oral scanner at Align Technology. In
addition, social marketing made a big push forward
in attractions at the exhibit area. Several of
our Orthotown Magazine contributors were represented
in this area. If you didn’t have the AAO
Hawaii app on your smartphone, you were considered
behind the times.
My airline “catch-up” reading was the April
AJO-DO Journal. I was very interested in the
Point-Counterpoint in this issue: “Should CBCT
imaging be used routinely as a pretreatment orthodontic
record?” The point discussion was put forth
by Dr. Brent Larson, of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The counterpoint was by Demetrios Halazonetis,
of Kifissia, Greece. Both discussions were based
solidly on current literature references, which leads
me to conclude that you can prove your point no
matter which side of the discussion you take. (My
pastor has made the same comment about the
Bible!) Orthotown Magazine has continuously provided
our readers with up-to-date articles regarding
CBCT and will continue to feature CBCT in
our annual September issue. But I digress. Each
point and counterpoint is valuable and certainly
worth spending time reading, no matter which
side of the issue you currently support. However,
for me, if I may paraphrase Dr. Larson’s finishing
statements: “In 1953, Cecil Steiner challenged
orthodontists with the following: ‘The cephalometer
is here to stay, and those of you who are not
using cephalometrics in your everyday clinical
practice must soon bow to its importance, accept
the added burden it imposes and master its mysteries
if you are to discharge your full obligation to
your patients.’”
Reading this brought to mind Dr. Robert
Murray Rickets. Developing an orthodontic
mechanics philosophy (Bioprogressive) supported
by cephalometrics, Dr. Rickets devoted his life to
the advancement of orthodontics. For a short time
before his death, Dr. Rickets attended some of the
Arizona Orthodontic Study Group meetings. He
was a genius with vision and purpose, and orthodontics
still pays homage to his tireless efforts to
achieve his vision.
Finally, Dr. Larson comments, “If you substitute
‘CBCT’ for ‘cephalometrics’ in Dr. Steiner’s
comment, it would summarize my feelings on the
adoption of this technology in orthodontics.” Dr.
Larson closes the discussion thusly: “With the
understanding that each patient should be assessed
before imaging and that patient-specific imaging
decisions are made, CBCT has replaced conventional
lateral cephalograms and panoramic images
as the most commonly ordered imaging for comprehensive
orthodontic patients… I truly believe
its use results in better patient care.”
Dr. Rickets was a great thinker, teacher and
innovator in orthodontics; perhaps one might
place him on a par with Steve Jobs of Apple.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to imagine how motivated
Dr. Ricketts would be if he were present
today and if he had the fantastic cone beam images
to get excited about? Bob Rickets exemplified the
truth that nothing stays the same and we must
adapt to the changes.
|