Can you provide any sort of cite for this somewhat extraordinary claim?
So when you see me sitting on the ‘sidewalk’ in an ill-fitting leatherette jacket chain-smoking cheap cigarettes, and thumbing through a pornographic magazine you won’t mind so much as long as I grin at you with my pearly whites?
Do kids “need” braces?
My niece sure as hell does.
Dentists and orthodontists will tell you ‘over 50%’. From what I have seen in my community, it’s more like 75% of kids have problems with their permanent teeth, and most of them get braces at some point. Most also have at least a few cavities before age 12. I know kids who have cavities in their baby teeth, which blows my mind.
There haven’t been any studies or research done recently on real people (that I can find) that compares the condition and formation of the teeth in modern populations with those of people still eating a vitamin-rich ‘natural’ diet. This would be difficult or nearly impossible in this day and age, since the number of people not eating a cheap modern diet (grain-based and heavy on sugars and processed foods, sugar-heavy, low in vitamins, animal fat and protein), are vanishingly small these days. Even remote villages and subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries have easy access to food that keeps for ages like soda, canned goods, sweeteners, and processed flour and rice.
The evidence for the fact that some populations as recently as the 1930s had almost zero tooth decay and orthodontic abnormalities is almost entirely epidemiological. For comprehensive research and many interesting photos that alone go very far towards validating his observations and recorded data, I recommend Weston A Price’s Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.
It’s accepted by most people these days as utterly normal that a majority of people have dental abnormalities (whether malocclusions, crowding, or impaction), as well as progressively severe tooth decay beginning in childhood and continuing throughout life, which results in the astounding figure I cited above of 1/4 of elderly* Americans* having no teeth left at all (I can’t imagine how bad it must be in other places that don’t have our level of dental care!)
Perhaps ‘deformed’ seems too strong a word. However, if any other mammal has a jaw improperly shaped to allow the normal side-by-side straight eruption of ALL permanent teeth, it is indeed considered deformed and abnormal - as I know very well from participation in the dog breeding community.
Now, if you talk to anthropologists, the differences between modern people and ancient peoples (in particular, those living before or around the dawn of agriculture, before the grain-dependent population exploded and an inadequate diet became the norm for more and more people) are extremely clear. Prehistoric human skulls are fairly uniform, being broad overall, with wide nearly C shaped jaws (as opposed to the narrow U-shaped jaws prevalent today), with plenty of room for all teeth (including wisdom) to emerge with very low chances of crowding or impaction, very little evidence of any decay (despite extensive physical wearing of teeth), and very little tooth loss.
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Brisb/techprogram/abstract_78407.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g187226005941mxn/
http://www.tau.ac.il/~anatom2/biohistory.html
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3AnLmzH35Tj6wJ%3Awww.anthropology.hawaii.edu%2FPeople%2FFaculty%2FPietrusewsky%2Fpdfs%2FAJPA%2520Abstract%25202009.pdf+neolithic+teeth+study&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbSR5ORf_bBMC0g87qmlbmuyWO5hDw
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:frBI7kYqVTIJ:arts.uwaterloo.ca/~mkjackes/Frontiers%2520in%2520Oral%2520Biology.pdf+neolithic+teeth+study&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Here is a nifty animation of a typical broad, symmetrical prehistoric skull morphing into a typical narrow modern skull: Dr. Gérard Subsol: study of the evolution of the human skull shape
I didn’t read thru all the links, but you are aware that what you quoted here has very little to do with braces, right?
The question is whether or not most kids need braces, as in will their quality of life be severely affected if their teeth aren’t fixed. It appears that the answer is no.
“Need” is subjective in this sense. Ask yourself, if my kid had a prominent, unsightly mole on their face that could be removed with little risk, would you go to the cost of having it removed? If the kid has a bad case of acne, which is unsightly but not life threatening, would you seek out a dermatologist?
Crooked our misaligned teeth can get to the degree they can lead to other problems. Problems in the mouth are better corrected early rather than later. In most cases, braces don’t save anyone’s life but they certainly can improve the quality of life. At that point it might be good to make the financial sacrifice to improve the quality of life for the child.
All that being said, I had a son that we thought “needed” braces and we went for it. The second son had great teeth but the somewhat unscrupulous orthodontist suggested that his teeth, while they didn’t “need” braces could be improved. He was quite clever in his wording. In my mind he was being less than ethical and we didn’t go for it. Both sons are doing fine and we feel that in both cases we made the right decision. So, buyer beware.
Yes. I was replying to a post about tooth decay. 
See my above post for more details regarding tooth and jaw deformities. And here are some more links of interest (since I think this is an important issue that everyone who plans to have children could benefit from exploring).
This study suggests that people with facial asymmetry have narrower dental arches: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7481977_Dental_arch_characteristics_of_the_facial_asymmetry
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/11_1Epidemiology.htm
For the lazy:
Even something that’s not “urgent” and would appear to be cosmetic, can lead to healthier jaws / teeth in the future because of better wear patterns.
That said - sometimes it’s more than cosmetic. Moon Unit is on her second round of orthodontia. The first started at age 8. Even I could see that her teeth were coming in very very crowded, and I was told that if we didn’t start the work soon, her permanent teeth would actually be damaged.
Round 1 expanded her upper jaw (palate expander, made the jaw a bit wider, some actual straightening as well) so she had room for most of her adult teeth. Round 2 has involved making room for some teeth that otherwise would never had descended, or would have grown in very crooked and perhaps damaged their neighbors.
Obviously she would not have died or anything drastic if we hadn’t had the work done, but she’d have had a lifetime of unnecessary dental problems.
In the ads that started this discussion, the parent(s) are very strapped for cash, yet the dental service acts like braces are something that every child needs. I’d say that the subjective here is that it would be the rare child that would need braces when the parent(s) is having trouble putting food on the table.
I can understand braces on children from middle class families, but I think peddling them to the poor as something their children must have is kinda evil.
Oh, yeah, I see that up there… :smack:
My better half had braces although he didn’t want them and they caused grief. (And he was cute before braces!!) Our daughter was told braces and oral surgery would be mandatory, but now she’s almost 18 and has been fine without either procedure. It seems among my social group, there are many stories of kids who looked perfectly good before braces, but their parents felt (or were told by orthodontists) they “needed” them. It’s often pushed whether people can afford it or not, whether it’s “necessary” seems kinda arbitrary.
Obvously you are right. But the original question was whether braces are necessary and my experience leads me to believe they aren’t. The what do you think of an orthodontist who puts these on and, when I didappear, made no attempt to follow it up. I call this malpractice.
Years later I had denitst brother-in-law and he told that she was notorious for using bug heavy braces that could cause more problems than they cured.
People with low income are at an increased risk of death. The tooth decay is another consequence of the low income, it’s not a death causal.
Are you saying your parents didn’t know they were supposed to bring you back? Because you said earlier that they didn’t bring you back because they didn’t have the money. I suspect that the orthodontist’s office probably did contact your parents, who weren’t able to come in. Was the office supposed to hunt you down and haul you in? Your parents were negligent, although for understandable reasons. Your parents were the ones who knew to bring you in and couldn’t. They knew every time they looked at your teeth with the big heavy braces and chose not to bring you back. It was their decision alone to keep you from going to the office. You really can’t blame the orthodontist for not abducting you.
In the old days, orthodontists used the big heavy metal bands around each tooth. That’s how mine were in the late 1960s. Once super adhesives became available, orthodontists switched to glue-on brackets instead. I had a 2nd go of braces in the early 1980s, and by then glue-on brackets were the norm. Both types work, but the glue-on brackets are less noticeable. The big bands will obviously cause problems if they’re not monitored and maintained. The glue-on ones will, too. As I said earlier, my daughter’s had to be removed early because of her not keeping her teeth and gums clean enough.