Dental Culture, Old Paradigms, Politics and Followers of Habits

HomeAbout OC | OC Masterclass Training | Course Schedule | Registration | Accommodations | About Dr. Chan | Study Club | Doctor EducationPatient EducationVision | Research Group | Science | Orthodontics | LaboratoryDr. Chan’s ArticlesGNM Dentistry | Contact Us | Partners | Dr. Chan’s Blog Notes  |  Finding a GNM Dentist

Dental culture, old paradigms, politics and followers of habits have perpetuate philosophies within the North American dental establishment with little bio-physiologic evidence of “science”, especially when it comes to actually diagnosing and treating their dental patient occlusion and TMD problems.  You have witnessed the progress of educational centers, institutions, etc and have observed the battles that neuromuscular/GNM dentists over these past 20+ years have battled… NM/GNM has arisen internationally strong to rival the cherished establishment dogmas. 

Many great scientific discoveries began with self-doubt.  As late as 1960 Bernard Jankelson wrote: “The dentist should do everything possible to see that centric relation and centric occlusion do coincide, since instability can trigger hypertonic contraction of muscles….”.  Few disciples of neuromuscular dentistry would attribute this statement to the father of neuromuscular dentistry.  Almost every scientific breakthrough has been preceded by a technological breakthrough that allows us to see the previously unseen.  Dentists are awakening and realizing that technology is available to objectively measure those muscle responses that give the clinician a great insight into what they didn’t realize before.

Measuring muscle activities and mandibular responses is the basis to truly identify a “physiologic” optimal position. 

Since the international community of dentists have already shown the world their gathered findings and evidence even referencing “scientific references’, I believe the CA entity of die-hard skeptics will still not be convinced even if they were provided an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence shown over these past 21 years. 

If those California colleagues would only begin to measure their patients physiologic responses with tools that record actually muscle activity data would they begin to realize as the rest of the international community of dentists have that identifying and capturing a physiologic bite is based on measurements, not mechanical dogma and guessing, even if they have digitized jaw trackers they would begin the eye opening journey and realize what they were taught from academia was flawed. 

I will post references to help satisfy some of the curiosity.  But again, don’t depend on these references to convince them…it will not!  They have much ego to lose politically.

Please let us know what kind of evidence will satisfy these people who have little regard for real science and investigations?

Back in 1/24/23 I posted on this OC forum a thread on “RE: SCIENCE – Validity of Using Surface Electromyograph in Dentistry Part 1 and 2”

in that thread I posted a lot of scientific references regarding EMG validity and supporting references to study.

Do you think the skeptic colleagues will have any interest to study and learn about the power of EMGs in clinical dentistry?

If not, you will soon realize they have no interest in finding the truth.

The rigged and biased entity of those engage in an anti-instrumentation agenda was exposed long ago in the “TCB Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Services Food and Drug Administration – Dental Products Panel Meeting Open Session Volume 1“, report on Tuesday, August 4, 1998.

A group of neuromuscular minded K7 dentists even offered to help participate in research with other colleagues involved with NIH, but time and time again their offer and assistance has been declined. One has to wonder why?


CR vs NM/GNM battle of occlusion >>> now after 20+ years

  1. Whenever a new discovery is reported to the scientific world, they say first,  “It is probably not true.”
  2. Thereafter, when the truth of the new proposition has been demonstrated beyond question, they say, “Yes it may be true, but it is not important.”
  3. Finally, when sufficient time has elapsed to fully evidence its importance they say, “Yes, surely it is important, but it is no longer new.” – Montaign 1533-1592


    Telephone: (702) 271-2950

    Leader in Gneuromuscular and Neuromuscular Dentistry