Editorial

SCIENCE AND ART

M OST authorities in the field of orthodontics have consistently referred to that field of endeavor as a science. To be sure, the basis of all branches

of dentistry, as well as all other forms of the healing arts, is traceable to such an arrangement of ideas and ideals.

Webster defines science as systematized knowledge and art as knowledge made efficient, by skill.

Certainly, the science of orthodontics has never wanted for expression. (:reat momentum has been given to it by waves of application of certain par- ticular systems or ideas dealing with classifications and diagnosis.

Angle is to be credited with undoubtedly the original and practical clini- cal approach to diagnosis of malocclusions. Lischer further scienced the fundamentals of expression with respect to diagnosis of malocclusions, and gave great impetus to the means of diagnosis as first introduced in the United States by Simon in 1924. It was this man who first said, “The teeth are not st,udied and measured in relation to themselves but in relation to the head 01 the skull.” One had merely to observe his works to realize that here was sys- tematized knowledge.

With the passing of time, and with the advent of cephalometric ra.diog- ral)hy, one cannot but realize how important a milestone was implanted along our roadway by Dr. Simon. That the gnathostatic system of diagnosis has not been more popular in orthodontics may have been due to several reasons, but probably chiefly to its complicity. .Perhaps the fact that there were scarcely any graduate schools in existence at the time led to its final limited use at the hands of a few, n-ho today still make useful contributions to our literature.

With the popularity of cephalometric radiography, the adage of Simon- “The teeth are nob studied and measured in relation to thelnselves but in re- lation to the head or the skull”-has taken on newer significance.

(Yitics of the gnathostat,ic system who are enthusiastic followers of cephalornetry have been known to say that the reason they prefer the latter is that gnathostatic mechanics are too liable to failure. Men esl)eriencetl in cephalotnetry have shown that therein also lies an error l)ercentage. The most important difference between this newer device ant1 the older methods is that it is more easily used.

929

930

In spite of the fact that perhaps never in the history of orthotloutics has any one method of diagnosis heen so sciencetl ant1 al)])~(~achetl in vi) t*iolis \viays by numerous workers as has cephalomet,rics, one fact must bc remembered, namely, it is but one of several tools 01’ tliagnosis, t,he weight of’ any one 01 which may cahange an entire clinical ap1~I*oa(‘h.

It is to be greatly regretted that, as in the case of many c)t,her factors ot influence, the cephalometric radiograph is sometimes used as a I)art oi’ a scheme of promotion and is of absolutely no scientific value.

Delivering knowledge to the clinician has always been the goal ol’ the researcher. Delivering the value of this knowletlge to the patient requires the expending of the skill of the clinician, which co~lstitutes the czrt of our profes-

sion as it does in the profession of the surgeon. In the realm of medicine, the ramifications are so extensive that, the clini-

cian has more help than do we in orthodontics. We are pecu1ia.r in t,hat we must both diagnose and treat and tzhereby solely in many instances exercise our knowledge of both the science and the art of out’ profession. We can never survive by exercising one of these tenets ;tlone.

E. E. S.

Dr. Henry Hoffman Honored by Rocky Mountain Society of Orthodontists

T HE Rocky Mountain Society of Ort~hodontists honored Henry Hoffman, one of its distinguished members, at a dinner in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on

Sept. 30, 1956. The speakers paid tribute to l)r. Hoffman for his many contri- butions to dentistry and to orthodontics.

Dr. Hoffman’s career dat,es from his graduation from t,he Colorado College of Dental Surgery in 1898, at. about the time that, orthodontics was first being talked about as a specialty of dentistry. He was one. of the first general prac- titioners of dentistry in I_)enver, Colorado, to devote a part of his time to the nebulous practice of orthodont,ics. In 1933, at a time when there were few specialists in the IJnited States? I)r. Hoffman restricted his practice to ortho- dontics.

Dr. Hoffman’s record is indeed an int,eresting WC. It is possible here to give only a brief summary of the career of this man whose achievements were full3 revealed for the first time at thn Santa Fe dinner.

As vice-president, president, and secretary, at various times, I)r. Hoffman has been a wheel horse in the Colorado State I)cntal Association for man? years. Hc served as manager of the Colorado Springs postgraduate courses of 1920 and 1921. Hc was prcscnt, with Dr. Frccl McKay at the birth of the fluoritlc problcn~ before the Colorado State I)cntnl Association.

l)r. IIoffman has served on cornmittccs t.oo ~LIIII~~I'O~IS to rntWion, including that group which conducted what, was known as thcl (‘olorado Painless Parker Campaign of 1927, which attracted attention all over America. He was one of the leaders in setting up the Colorado Dcnt,al Laws adopted by that st,ate, and he served several times on the Colorado State Board of Dental Examiners.