Abstract
The common joke among our fraternity is that if you put two orthodontists in a room with one patient, they will come out with three treatment plans and argue until their last breath (or tooth) that theirs is the best. So this editorial, which comes out in the middle of the Great Indian Elections of 2024, is going to celebrate unity in diversity, orthodontic style.
First, why do we agree to disagree on almost everything orthodontic? Be it the efficiency of functional appliances, the myriad prescriptions, or retention—the controversies are endless and perhaps the maximum in our science. But wait, science? Can there be ambiguity in science? Mathematics is the flag bearer of science. Two plus two is four in any corner of the galaxy. Some say it is biology, and the differences in biology, such as the healing time between two individuals with similar injuries, are explained as variability. The point I am trying to make is that there is an explanation, and scientists accept and agree.
So, can orthodontists agree to disagree? Should we not agree on some basic aspects? We have as many opinions as there are orthodontists (plus one) on broader issues like esthetics, function, growth, biomechanics (believe it or not, there is literature which is critical of moment to force concepts, denying the phenomenon of growth spurts as related to maxilla and mandible) and in specifics like arch forms or third molars. Many issues where we do not agree are common to other branches of science. Should a statistical assessment be done for baseline data, especially in a randomized study? Citation pattern is another common example. From Vancouver to Harvard, there are hundred-plus (and counting) systems. Each journal and each specialty believes that its “system” is the best. And editors are finicky about that, including yours truly. We believe it is the biggest insult to the journal when the recommended citation style is not followed. Pity the corresponding author. Pity more if it is rejected and has to be sent to “another” journal. Though there are software programs for it, is it not a classic case of the tail wagging the dog? We have not created these different systems to establish our independence for a much bigger objective like say, the left-hand drive automobiles and driving on the right was thought of and implemented in America as a sign of their “independence” from the hegemonic Brits.
Disagreeing with each other makes our specialty more interesting and alive. We have also disagreed very politely. More importantly, geographic discordance is minimal. We have not rejected skeletal anchorage systems because they originated in the East or because functional appliances were primarily a European concept. Our leaders should be credited and appreciated for allowing us to grow (pun intended) and agreeing to disagree. Like in the Indian elections, irrespective of who is first past the post, the voter is the winner, and the unsung Election Commission is the champion in the background. The unity in diversity is celebrated in grandeur.
A very happy World Orthodontic Health Day. Incidentally, the literature does not agree whether orthodontic treatment improves oral hygiene or worsens it.1–5 Long live the specialty of orthodontics. Truly mathematic, biologic, and therefore very, very special.