The MAS (mandibular advancement series) difference.

So now it may be seen what is meant by the term "The MAS Difference". The American orthodontic specialty has for the most part been slow, or even in isolated pockets, willfully resistant to expansion of orthodontic technique up out of the "Procrustean bed" of fixed appliance limitations to the panorama of attacking the teeth-bone-muscle triangle of malocclusion with separate techniques and appliance systems designed specifically for each. What makes this anathema to those of a broader view is that it is only with those expanded, combined fixed AND functional techniques, that one has any chance at all of rendering anything close to significantly successful treatment of major TMJ-pain-headache-dysfunction chronic pain problems. And that is serious stuff. So, if you want to do "ortho" you had better know "TMJ". And, if you want to do "TMJ", at least TMJ to any meaningful degree, you had better know "ortho", and that means the discipline of functional orthodontics (or "maxillofacial orthopedics" if you will). The "why" of it is easily understandable once one truly understands the orthopedic (condylar displacement), myofunctional (Class II neuromuscular sling), and neurological (chronic repetitive compression nerve damage) aspects of the common functionally induced TMJ problem. The "how" of it all is another matter. That is why knowledge of a broad variety of various specific orthodontic techniques is required for the clinician because there are a vast variety of malocclusive situations with their own unique demands. But in the broadest sense, since a major portion of the orthodontic patient population suffers from somewhat of a skeletal Class II relationship, or "Class II effect" with respect to the joint, somewhere in the proposed treatment plan for these patients the clinician will have to consider some form of mandibular advancement series, whatever that series may be. But it is that MAS difference that sets that clinician and his or her specific treatment plan apart from the older, more restricted ways. It is a difference we must pay attention to, for Nature surely will.

The bionator/OCI as a retainer.

For over a century the complete and long term retention of orthodontic treatment results has been the "Achilles heel" of the orthodontic discipline, regardless of which particular technique was used to treat a given case nor which treatment philosophy spawned its methods. Yes, there are some cases that appear on the surface to remain orthodontically stable, preserving the beautiful results effected by the treating clinician's efforts without exhibiting even the most minuscule post-treatment changes in tooth position.

The pen: the clinician's most powerful "handpiece".

They say when you travel that you have to take 100 photographs per day to adequately cover an area such as Disney World, Hawaii, London, or some other such place. I thought at first that sounded ridiculous until I tried it myself. They were right. If you really try to show the folks back home what your trip to some exotic place was really like, about 100 snap shots per day is about what it takes. You always seem to wind up with less pictures of things than you think you have. The same holds true for record keeping in dentistry. There is no such thing as too much.