Zweihorn Chaninah L
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA.
J Hist Dent. 2003 Jul;51(2):81-8.
Extraction of permanent teeth in the course of orthodontic treatment remains controversial. Today, opinions vary widely as to how frequently such extractions are necessary. Many dentists appreciate, however, that in the 1920s and 1930s, orthodontists virtually never prescribed extraction. The movement to abolish extraction therapy in orthodontics really began in the late Nineteenth Century. Led by Edward H. Angle, this "New School of Orthodontics," despite an explosion of activity during the first decade of the Twentieth Century, did not rapidly succeed in its mission. During the period considered in this study, dentists continued to extract teeth to treat orthodontic problems and even many experts in orthodontics continued to vociferously defend this practice. Claims of the extremists, whether in favor of or against extraction, did not benefit from true scientific evidence. Dentists based their theories on experience or mere conjecture. The situation today is not very different. Before taking an unqualified stand on the issue of extraction, one should realize that, historically, such stands have proven unconvincing. The fashion of a period may favor one side over the other only for the situation to reverse in the next period.
在正畸治疗过程中拔除恒牙仍然存在争议。如今，对于此类拔牙的必要性频率，观点差异很大。然而，许多牙医认识到，在20世纪20年代和30年代，正畸医生几乎从不建议拔牙。正畸学中废除拔牙疗法的运动实际上始于19世纪末。在爱德华·H·安格尔的带领下，这个“正畸新学派”，尽管在20世纪的第一个十年活动激增，但其使命并未迅速成功。在本研究考虑的时期内，牙医继续拔牙以治疗正畸问题，甚至许多正畸专家仍在大力捍卫这种做法。极端分子无论是支持还是反对拔牙的主张，都没有得到真正科学证据的支持。牙医们的理论基于经验或仅仅是猜测。如今的情况也没有太大不同。在对拔牙问题采取无条件立场之前，人们应该意识到，从历史上看，这样的立场已被证明是缺乏说服力的。一个时期的风尚可能偏袒一方，但在下一个时期情况就会逆转。
