American Journal of ORTHODONTICS

O r t h o d o n t i c s has never been a quiet, settled specialty, but the current controversy, touching as it does upon the very scientific bases of orthodontic diagnosis, case assessment, and t reatment p lanning--not to mention a number of complex ethical issues--has commanded an unusual amount of attention, both at the meetings of our societies and in the pages of our journals. Computers / large data bases, 2 and service agencies ~ are used to provide the clinician with norms, standards, growth projections and even appropriate t reatment strategems. Morphometrics, computerized cephalometrics, and clinical deviations are all catchwords and phrases coined, in keeping with the best of advertising tradition, to divert attention from the intrinsic values of the product and focus on the packaging. In selling the concept of a "norm," for example, it is suggested that data generated by a computer is afortiori scientifically acceptable. What remains unspoken is the tacit assumption that the extent of the individual patient 's depar ture f rom such norms is a reliable indication of his growth potential. Some have, of course, recognized--and re jected-this assumption. The result of the ensuing dialogue has been a bipolarization of opinion among orthodontis ts--