The October editorial, “Research topics—past, present, and future (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:341), reinforces the need for researchers to focus on the important clinical questions rather than on the availability of materials and methods. I agree that new research tools and techniques are essential. However, I also believe that more answers can be extracted from our traditional headfilms. It sounds simplistic, but our profession still has not completely differentiated dental from skeletal malocclusions. It is great to move ahead with new tools, but we cannot forget that some basic questions are still unanswered.
It may be that so far we have not fully assessed the problem with our current tools; instead of changing the material, we need to change the method. In the last year, our research group has worked on a new diagnostic tool for malocclusions, using regular headfilms but improving the interpretation of the data. Our first research paper is almost ready to be submitted. Our goal is to use a different logic—fuzzy logic—to better classify malocclusions. Future steps could be growth prediction and evaluation of treatment outcomes. In a few words, we know that, in nature, Class II or III malocclusions are presented in a gradual and smooth range from normality to abnormality. Using classical logic, with strict boundaries and crisp measurements, malocclusions have not been well classified. Fuzzy logic might provide a better understanding of the relationships among craniofacial variables from traditional headfilms. We hope this will lead to better diagnostic tools to achieve better treatment protocols.
FULL TEXT