SPEED Users Guide

1 INTRODUCTION Dr. G. Herbert Hanson, D.D.S. Prior to 1981, it was illegal for an orthodontist in the Province of Ontario, Canada to delegate procedures such as archwire removal and bracket ligation to auxiliary personnel. This was a large factor in my decision to design a new edgewise appliance for greater operator efficiency. Although my initial goals were primarily to eliminate the need for ligation, it gradually became apparent that other desirable features were possible. Some of these were: • improved esthetics • significant miniaturization • greater precision and control • reduced tendency to trap food • greater predictability of friction I purchased drafting equipment and started work on the design of prototypes in 1970. During the following six years several models were tested in vitro and clinically. Despite their numerous deficiencies, these early prototypes led me to new concepts which finally culminated in the basic SPEED Bracket design by 1976. It was at this time that Strite Industries became involved in my project and the long, arduous task of design optimization began. Today, the SPEED Appliance has reached a level of sophistication far exceeding my original expectations. It now enables me to achieve better treatment results with less chair time than ever before. This syllabus is intended to familiarize clinicians with the SPEED System™ and provide a rough outline of possible treatment methods at its present stage of evolution. It is my hope that SPEED Appliance users will find some pointers in it for adaptation to their own preferred techniques. MY TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY The teachers who influenced me most during the formative years of my career were Donald Woodside, Aaron Posen, Holly Halderson and Egil Harvold. Their dedication to high standards, with great emphasis upon biological considerations, has left an indelible imprint on my thinking. Mindful of the limitations imposed upon us by nature, we should strive to: Although few orthodontists would disagree with these objectives, I doubt that any two will use precisely the same methods for achieving them. 1. Establish a good functional occlusion 2. Maximize dental and facial esthetics 3. Avoid or at least minimize such possible “scars” of orthodontic treatment as enamel decalcification, root resorption or accelerated aging of the dentition 4. Maximize the long-term stability of our treatment results 5. Nurture in the patient a high appreciation of good dental health and beauty 6. Accomplish these objectives with a minimum of inconvenience, discomfort or embarrassment to the patient while sparing ourselves the needless chair time associated with anything less than the most efficient appliance 7. Systemize the mechanotherapy where possible 8. Make the patients happy about their orthodontic treatment 9. Give ourselves cause to feel proud of the work we have done

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzg3Njc4