Orthodontists Guilty Of Institutional Professional Misconduct, Says UK Lobby Group 'Orthodontic Outrage'

Main Category: Dentistry
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 15 Mar 2005 - 15:00 PDT


According to a new lobby group called Orthodontic Outrage, the UK's professional orthodontic body is using its power to intimidate and suppress dissenting opinion - to the potential harm of patients.

"Their behaviour certainly amounts to institutional professional suppression and - given the harm that can be caused by unnecessary surgery and inappropriate extractions - could even be seen as institutional professional misconduct," claims John Mew from Orthodontic Outrage who is a leading advocate of the non-extraction and growth guidance approach. "In most other countries there is a healthy debate on the recent scientific evidence which has questioned the merits of extractions, but in the UK the professional body is closing ranks to suppress any form of debate."

"They are afraid of engaging dissenting intellectuals such as myself in open debate - either in the press or in court - because they know that they're on weak scientific ground," adds Mew. "Instead they use their professional power - resorting to intimidation and suppression."

For over a hundred years orthodontic opinion has been split in two. One group favours straightening teeth by mechanics and surgery and the other by natural growth guidance to avoid the need for extractions. At different times over the past century each group held ascendancy almost to the exclusion of the other.

In 1999 orthodontics became a recognised specialty within dentistry and by 2003 the mechanical group had established control in the UK and, claiming to have become the 'recognised authority', they ensured that their own views were used to define the guiding criteria* (on which any profession is based):

1 a common body of knowledge resting on a well-developed, widely accepted theoretical base;

2 a system for certifying that individuals possess such knowledge before being licensed or otherwise allowed to practice;

However the UK body's definition of the common body of knowledge promotes the mechanical and surgical group's views, and excludes the views of the rival growth guidance group. This ideological bias is not supported by any sound theoretical base - something recognised by a series of the world's top independent scientists:

-- Sackett, D. Professor of Evidenced Based Research at Oxford. 1985 "Orthodontics is behind such treatment modalities as acupuncture, hypnosis, homeopathy, and on a par with scientology".

-- Johnston L.E. Professor of orthodontics at Ann Arbour Michigan. 1990 "Clinical practice �is at bottom largely an empirical process that is little influenced by theory inferred from any of the life sciences".

-- Richards Derek. Director of Evidenced Based Dentistry, 2000 "The current focus of dental schools leans toward the teaching of technical skills rather than scientific thinking".

-- Shaw, W C, 2000. Dean Manchester Dental School. "Sadly it is hard to see this situation changing unless the inadequacy of current (orthodontic) knowledge is acknowledged by its practitioners".

-- Frankel Rolf. 2001 "A mechanical approach treats a symptom, not the cause".

The UK body is also demonstrating bias in the implementation of its certification criteria - certifying only those that support its own views and actively enforcing sanctions in an attempt to oust its rivals

They have reported several dissenting dentists to the General Dental Council for disciplinary action for 'inappropriate' (in their eyes) treatment with the aim of preventing them from practicing. In seeking to use their 'recognised authority' to impose their ideological views, they are not only threatening any unfortunate colleagues who believe in 'natural growth guidance' with financial ruin, but are also denying the public access to non-extraction treatment.

The dominance of the established mechanical group within the profession has meant that almost all children in the UK with overcrowding are treated with the extraction of four or eight permanent teeth, followed by the use of 'train tracks' to move the remaining teeth into line, whereas in other countries various forms of growth guidance are widely used.

Many parents do not find out about growth guidance until it is too late. "I took my son to the dentist and the orthodontist every year but it was not until he was thirteen that they said he would need teeth extracting and a major operation to his jaws," said Mrs Tzaplewski, an outraged mother. "Now I am told that all this could have been avoided if he had had preventive treatment when he was six or seven. This almost amounts to supervised neglect."

Mew has formed Orthodontic Outrage, a crusading group of orthodontists and patients that support either growth guidance or at least a more open debate. They claim that the following areas of concern should be open to debate:

1) Conventional orthodontics, as practiced by the majority of orthodontists in the UK, often causes more harm than good.

2) Patients are not being informed of the risks of or alternatives to orthodox treatment and are therefore unable to provide fully informed consent.

3) The 'orthodox' group is so sure that it is right that it feels justified in suppressing those who use non-extraction methods.

4) Monopolisation of education over the last three decades has lead to a severe shortage of clinicians with non-extraction skills.

5) Many orthodontists are engaging in 'Supervised Neglect' by delaying treatment until puberty when it is often too late to use growth guidance to avoid surgery or the extraction of teeth.

A guiding principle for all professions* is "a commitment to use specialized knowledge for the public good, and a renunciation of the goal of profit maximization, in return for professional autonomy and monopoly power".

"The orthodontic profession has a monopoly on the largest health expense that many families will ever face," adds Mew. "At the moment the public are being forced to accept a single treatment option with potentially harmful effects by orthodontists who are earning very large incomes. This could hardly be argued as using their monopoly for the public good."

About Orthodontic Outrage:

Orthodontic Outrage is a lobby group formed to promote greater debate, and indeed balance, between the competing orthodontic groups that promote either mechanical and surgical methods or non-extraction and natural growth guidance methods. It is supported by the following groups:

-- Patients Association
PO Box 935, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3YJ. Phone: 0208 423 9111

-- International Association of Facial growth Guidance.
http://www.orthotropics.com

-- Society for the Study of Craniomandibula Disorders.
http://www.craniogroup.com

About John Mew:

John Mew is a leading advocate of the non-extraction and growth guidance approach and the world's leading practitioner of Orthotropics (see http://www.orthotropics.com). He is an internationally recognised lecturer and has been invited to present at many of the world's most important international orthodontic conferences in recent years. Although he is also the author of numerous international scientific papers - most recently in the American Journal of Orthodontics - his views are rarely published in the UK.

While John Mew's contribution to the dental profession has been recognised by many national and international bodies - including honorary life membership of the British Dental Association - the main orthodontic body in the UK sees him very differently.

*guiding principles of all professions

For further information contact:
John Mew at Orthodontic Outrage
Tel: +44 1435 862045
orthodontic.outrage@virgin.net
http://www.orthodontic-outrage.com

• Additional
• References
• Citations