Nick YianniosWhere are your studies to back your talk up Chan? We are still waiting… You’re sounding like a salesman for Myotronics.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Clayton A. Chan

Nick, where have you been all these years? 15 years ago and even earlier in the early 1970’s this NM battle was ragged (read: http://nmdfacts-battles.blogspot.com/) among our profession regarding occlusion and the neuromuscular concepts validity to which I practice. Scientific facts rather than opinions was Dr. Bernard Jankelson’s basis for his further investigative studies as a trained prosthodontist who practiced in the state of Washington.

Let me take a moment to update you on some past history. (if you have time to carefully read). “In 1986, the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs recognized Myotronic’s neuromuscular instrumentation. [To keep the record straight I am not a paid a salesment by Myotronics nor have any financial interest with them like some others. I am just an end user who realizes its value and sophistication very well].

In July 1995 House Commerce Oversight Subcommittee on allegations of FDA retaliation that the FDA’s Office of Internal Affairs found Roland Jankelson’s testimony so compelling, the credibility of then FDA Commissioner David Kessler’s testimony to the Committee regarding the Myotronic’s issues so lacking and the evidence of FDA cover up so powerful that the criminal investigation was transferred to the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. The two year investigation concluded “In 1994 the Dental Products Advisory Panel of the Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) assessing a Myotronics Inc. dental measuring device was indeed rigged.” The probed resulted in discipline and dismissal of certain FDA employees, including the author of the 1988 ADA Draft Status Report.

I do not believe your Bio colleagues had the guts or stamina to stand up to such scrutiny and convictions, even to this day….if so where have they been during those early pioneering years and even after during those years when many criticized NM instrumentation, its validity and its concepts? Where have they been when it was needed to stand up, voice their belief’s, convictions in order for you to enjoy the things you are professing today? Where have they been? Hiding? Just watching on the sidelines to see who is the winner?…without putting any conviction of thought or effort into really find the truths about how the masticatory system works physiologically, or are they just selling equipment to the dentists with no occlusal philosophical belief.

Dr. James Garry, past President of ICCMO, Dr. Barry Cooper, President of ICCMO, Dr. Larry Tilley, President of the TMD Alliance, Robert and Roland Jankelson (son’s of Bernard Jankelson) who possessed the courage and tenacity of Dr. Bernard Jankelson (father of Neuromuscular Dentistry) along with countless others gave their time and energies to overcome seemingly insurmountable adversaries who were skeptical about the validity. Yet, time after time the disciples of Dr. J have prevailed and the pigeons of Zeus retreat, only to reappear. Their venues change, but their agendas remain the same.

The neuromuscular devices, principles and protocols have the ADA Seal of Acceptance and recognition of the FDA. The neuromuscular devices I and many of my GNM colleagues use clinically have the lowest priority classification as per the Advisory Council, which have been granted in 1994, and are recognized as safe and effective by the FDA. An overwhelming amount of scientific evidence was produced to both the ADA and FDA’s scrutinizing councils years ago so to produce that here would be unproductive. But if you want you can do your own research as I have done years ago to read up and find those supportive papers as I have done in times past giving you reference link for your perusal on your own time. (see above and the related links in those links).

Through the years since the early 1970’s there has been a resistance of anti-instrumentation critics when the present methodologies were challenged with scientific credibility. Although the CR concepts has been the gold standard for years it has been unsupported with scientific evidence. In 1988 the political battlefield shifted from occlusion to TMD. A small group identified with the gnathological occlusal paradigm joined a small group from the American Association of Orofacial Pain (AAOP), to exert political pressure upon the ADA to rescind the Scientific Council Seal of Recognition for neuromuscular measuring devices.

As time evolved the K7 users across this continent and internationally (university research departments, etc) also see: http://occlusionconnections.com/…/k7-system-used-in…/, advanced protocols and techniques have been developed beyond the classical NM teachings over these past 15 years at OC. Testing these protocols and ideas has been done amongst many astute and very clinicians of at least 10-21 years of clinical experience regarding EMG fatigue analysis and various clinical studies regarding efficacy of occlusal outcomes.

GNM teachings sprouted out from the foundations of NM to further advance the concepts and teachings beyond the classical NM teachings. Interestingly the Bio folks including you and your colleagues are riding on the good will of dedicated hard work of others you seem to fail to acknowledge the often unrecognized NM predecessors who pioneered and developed the foundation of CMS, EMG, ESG and TENS technologies to which you are privy to know in limited forms (whether more advanced than K7 is to be questioned clinically and philosophically).

Dr. Norman Mohl was retained by the ADA to review the scientific safety and efficacy of these devices as aids in diagnosis and treatment of TMD. The draft Report concluded that “Expert for devices have been developed for electromyographic biofeedback, none of the other devices intended for treatment of TMD have the scientific evidence required for their recommendations.” Ultimately it could not hold back the tide of scientific evidence that exposed the Mohl Report as a adhominem politial diatribe, not a reasoned scientific document.

Myotronics submitted a voluminous review of the scientific literature supporting the efficacy of surface EMG, jaw tracking and low frequency TENS for diagnosis and treatment of TMD to the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. After unprecedented scientific scrutiny these devices were ultimately awarded the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs Seal of Acceptance. “Manuscripts submitted to scientific journals are reviewed for validity in the same way as granted requests. And who is better qualified to judge an article than those same eminent experts with their laurels to guard?”

It is based on this science and the work of many of my colleagues, our studies, clinical experience from years of practice and analysis from various perspectives and philosophies being in the trenches of dentistry and using our K7’s properly and completely and prudently both nationally and internationally that we at Occlusion Connections follow and implement the physiologic occlusal and neuromuscular principles we call GNM at an advanced objective level.

I am not sure if you have time to study these objective measuring concepts to the depth that many of us OC doctors have studied over these 15 years, since we too are a group of analytical and skeptical clinician’s who are very interested in TMD and occlusion, etc., desiring to positively assist in understanding the demises of TMD issues and effective remedies. That is why we ask you the questions and will continue to do so to encourage a rational debate of clinical and treatment effectiveness for the sake of our TMD lay folk members understanding.

Ragging Battles and Rigged Panels

NMDFACTS-BATTLES.BLOGSPOT.COM

– Clayton A. Chan, D.D.S. – Las Vegas, NV

www.occlusionconnections.com