Difference between revisions of "Introduction"

Latest revision as of 13:55, 25 October 2024

Introduction

Article by Gianni Frisardi

Abstract: The masticatory system, encompassing teeth, occlusion, muscles, joints, and the central nervous system, is increasingly understood as a complex system rather than a simple biomechanical mechanism. This shift in perspective aligns with Thomas Kuhn's phases of paradigm shifts, where anomalies in traditional models trigger the search for new paradigms. In the context of Masticationpedia, a new interdisciplinary approach to diagnosing and treating malocclusion emerges, focusing on "Occlusal Dysmorphisms" rather than "malocclusion."

Recent advancements in electrophysiological testing, such as motor-evoked potentials and jaw reflexes, reveal functional symmetry in the masticatory system, even in patients with occlusal discrepancies. This finding challenges the traditional understanding of malocclusion, suggesting that neuromuscular dynamics play a crucial role in maintaining masticatory function. Consequently, interdisciplinary diagnostics that consider both occlusal and neuromuscular factors are necessary for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.

This paradigm shift has implications for current rehabilitative therapies, including orthodontics and prosthetics, which have traditionally focused on achieving occlusal stability. However, considering the masticatory system as a complex system requires an integrative approach that incorporates both aesthetic and neurophysiological factors to prevent relapses and achieve long-term functional stability. The emerging field of OrthoNeuroGnathodontic treatments exemplifies this interdisciplinary approach, offering innovative strategies for addressing masticatory disorders.

By viewing the masticatory system through the lens of complexity science, the field of dentistry can expand its understanding of occlusal stability and dysfunction, ultimately leading to new treatment paradigms that enhance patient outcomes. This new model does not replace traditional treatments but seeks to enrich them with a broader interdisciplinary perspective, aligning with the evolving science of masticatory rehabilitation.

Ab ovo^[1]

Before delving into the analysis of Masticationpedia, we must first introduce some preliminary considerations, particularly regarding two fundamental dimensions—social and scientific-clinical aspect—that characterize both the present era and the one immediately preceding it.

The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn

Over the past century, technological and methodological innovations^[2] have exponentially increased, especially in dentistry. These developments have significantly impacted decision-making, schools of thought, and fundamental principles, with the explicit goal of improving quality of life, as emphasized in the "Science of Exposure in the 21st Century".^[3] However, this exponential growth hides conceptual ambiguities—or, practically speaking, "side effects"—that, though often underestimated, can challenge scientific certainties, making them more probabilistic.^[4] These sensitive aspects of current social, scientific, and clinical reality, seemingly in conflict, will ultimately prove to be complementary by the end of this analysis. This evolution follows the concept of "Progress of Science," according to Kuhn’s interpretation of "Epistemology."

In his most famous work, Thomas Kuhn argues that science advances through distinct cycles reflecting its operational dynamics.^[5]^[6] Kuhn posits that science is structured around paradigms and establishes a clear demarcation between science and pseudoscience based on the presence of a shared paradigm. The evolution of scientific progress is depicted as a continuous curve interrupted by discontinuities, represented by paradigm shifts.

In these periods of crisis, scientists act as problem solvers, seeking to resolve anomalies. These "scientific revolutions" occur when the existing paradigm can no longer interpret new anomalies, pushing the scientific community toward new paradigms that better align with observations.

Kuhn's phases in Dentistry

Thomas Kuhn identifies five distinct phases in the evolution of a scientific paradigm—a process crucial for Masticationpedia. However, to align with the project’s scope, we will focus on the three most significant phases, as indicated in the book’s index.

Phase 2, or Normal Science: In this phase, scientists solve problems to strengthen the correspondence between the paradigm and natural reality. This phase establishes the principles on which future research is based, and it produces most of the scientific literature. Here, "anomalies" arise—events that contradict the dominant paradigm.

Phase 4, or the Crisis of the Paradigm: During this phase, new paradigms emerge as the dominant one is rejected. Masticationpedia will address the crisis in masticatory rehabilitation by reviewing theories, axioms, and diagnostic criteria, leading to Phase 5.

Phase 5, or the Scientific Revolution: During this period, the scientific community debates which paradigm to adopt. The chosen paradigm might not be the "truest" but the one gaining the most support. In Masticationpedia, a new model in masticatory rehabilitation will be introduced, focusing on data-driven inferences rather than symptom-based models.

Kuhn’s concept gives priority to discipline-specific expertise, yet this contradicts the interdisciplinary nature of modern science. A detailed analysis of this discrepancy is therefore appropriate.

Epistemology

The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all swans are white?
	Kuhn used optical illusion to demonstrate how a paradigm shift can cause a person to see the same information in a completely different way.

Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "certain knowledge" or "science", and λόγος, logos, "discourse") is the branch of philosophy that studies the necessary conditions for acquiring scientific knowledge and the methods through which it is achieved.^[7] Specifically, it refers to the investigation of the foundations, validity, and limits of scientific knowledge. In English-speaking countries, the term "epistemology" is often synonymous with the theory of knowledge or gnoseology, which examines the study of knowledge in general.

The central problem of epistemology, today as in the times of Hume,^[8]^[9] is the issue of verifiability. According to Hempel’s paradox, every example that does not contradict a theory confirms it, which is described as:

$A\Rightarrow B=\lnot A\lor B$ Let’s consider the statement: “If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain.” We can represent this in logic as $A\Rightarrow B=\lnot A\lor B$ , where: $A$ represents "The person has TMDs." $B$ represents "The person experiences orofacial pain." In this case, "If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain" is equivalent to saying “either the person does not have TMDs ( $\lnot A$ ), or they experience orofacial pain ( $B$ )”. The formula is true in the following cases: If the person does not have TMDs ( $\lnot A$ ), the statement is true, regardless of orofacial pain. If the person has TMDs ( $A$ ) and experiences orofacial pain ( $B$ ), the statement is true. The statement is false only if the person has TMDs ( $A$ ) but does not experience orofacial pain ( $\lnot B$ ), contradicting the implication condition.

No theory can be definitively true; while there are finite experiments to confirm it, an infinite number could refute it.^[10]

But it’s not all so obvious...

...because epistemology evolves continually, even in medicine:

P-value: In medicine, for example, we rely on statistical inference to confirm experimental results, specifically the 'P-value The p-value represents the probability that observed results are due to chance, assuming the null hypothesis $H_{0}$ is true. It should not be used as a binary criterion (e.g., $p<0.05$ ) for scientific decisions, as values near the threshold require additional verification, such as cross-validation. p-hacking (repeating tests to achieve significance) increases false positives. Rigorous experimental design and transparency about all tests conducted can mitigate this risk. Type I error increases with multiple tests: for $N$ independent tests at threshold $\alpha$ , the Family-Wise Error Rate (FWER) is $FWER=1-(1-\alpha )^{N}$ . Bonferroni correction divides the threshold by the number of tests, $p<{\frac {\alpha }{N}}$ , but can increase false negatives. The False Discovery Rate (FDR) by Benjamini-Hochberg is less conservative, allowing more true discoveries with an acceptable proportion of false positives. The Bayesian approach uses prior knowledge to balance prior and data with a posterior distribution, offering a valid alternative to the p-value. To combine p-values from multiple studies, meta-analysis uses methods like Fisher's: $\chi ^{2}=-2\sum \ln(p_{i})$ . In summary, the p-value remains useful when contextualized and integrated with other measures, such as confidence intervals and Bayesian approaches.' a "significance test" that assesses data validity. Yet, even this entrenched concept is now being challenged. A recent study highlighted a campaign in the journal "Nature" against the use of the P-value.^[11] Signed by over 800 scientists, this campaign marks a "silent revolution" in statistical inference, encouraging a reflective and modest approach to significance.^[12]^[13]^[14] The American Statistical Association contributed to this discussion by releasing a special issue of "The American Statistician Association" titled "Statistical Inference in the 21st Century: A World Beyond p < 0.05." It offers new ways to express research significance and embraces uncertainty.^[15]

Interdisciplinarity: Solving science-based problems increasingly demands interdisciplinary research (IDR), as underscored by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project.^[16] Yet IDR poses cognitive challenges, partly due to the dominant "Physical Paradigm of Science" that limits its recognition. The "Engineering Paradigm of Science" has been proposed as an alternative, focusing on technological tools and collaboration. Researchers need "metacognitive scaffolds"—tools to enhance interdisciplinary communication and knowledge construction.^[17]^[18]

Interdisciplinarity

A superficial view might suggest a conflict between the disciplinarity of the "Physics Paradigm of Science The "Physical Paradigm of Science" describes an epistemological approach prevalent in the physical sciences, focusing on deterministic models and rigorous experimental methodologies. This paradigm relies on empirical observations and the scientific method to seek universal laws governing natural phenomena.Key Characteristics 1. Determinism: Assumes that natural phenomena follow fixed laws, allowing for accurate predictions based on initial conditions. 2. Measurability and Reproducibility: Emphasizes quantitative measurements and reproducible experiments to confirm results across different contexts. 3. Isolation of Variables: Focuses on analyzing specific effects by isolating variables, often idealizing systems under controlled conditions. While effective in classical natural sciences, the physical paradigm has limitations in complex fields like neurophysiology, where dynamic interactions and variability challenge deterministic models. Application in Masticatory Neurophysiology: In masticatory neurophysiology, the physical paradigm aids in developing basic models but falls short in explaining emergent behaviors, such as motor unit recruitment in response to complex stimuli. Towards an Integrated Paradigm: Emerging is an "Engineering Paradigm of Science," which offers a more adaptive approach that considers complexity, allowing for more flexible predictive models that account for non-linear interactions in biological systems." (which highlights anomalies) and the interdisciplinarity of the "Engineering Paradigm of Science The Engineering Paradigm of Science emphasizes practical applications, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the understanding of complex systems. It contrasts with traditional deterministic models, focusing instead on real-world problem-solving, particularly in fields like biology, medicine, and social sciences.Key Features Problem-Solving Orientation: Prioritizes solutions to complex issues over purely theoretical models. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Encourages integration of knowledge from various disciplines, enhancing understanding through shared expertise. Complex Systems Focus: Acknowledges emergent behavior and the interconnectivity of system components, recognizing that outcomes can be unpredictable and non-linear. Iterative Process: Embraces an adaptive approach, refining models based on empirical data and feedback to improve responsiveness.Technological Integration: Applies engineering principles to enhance research design and data analysis, utilizing simulations and computational modeling. Application in Masticatory Neurophysiology In masticatory neurophysiology, this paradigm fosters innovative diagnostic tools and treatment approaches. By integrating neurophysiology, biomechanics, and material science, it provides a comprehensive view of jaw function and dysfunction.The Engineering Paradigm of Science promotes collaboration and innovation, ultimately leading to advancements that enhance our understanding of complex systems and improve practical outcomes across various fields." (focused on metacognitive scaffolds). However, these perspectives are not in conflict; they are complementary and drive "Paradigmatic Innovation" in science.

It could be said that "Innovations" represent "Progresses of Science," as illustrated in the article "Scientific Bases of Dentistry" by Yegane Guven, which explores the impact of biological and digital revolutions on dentistry.^[19] True scientific progress is not solely achieved through "Incremental Innovations" or "Radical Innovations" but through "Paradigmatic Innovations."

"Paradigmatic Innovations" represent a change in thinking that spreads through humanity, affecting society on many levels, from the Copernican revolution to the stochastic methods applied to biological phenomena.^[20]

This epistemological context, which includes initiatives like the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and Evidence-Based Medicine, aligns with Masticationpedia’s aim to highlight anomalies that stimulate changes in scientific thought, ultimately leading to "Paradigmatic Innovation."

Dental Malocclusion

"Malocclusion" derives from the Latin "malum," meaning "bad" or "wrong," and refers to improper closure of the teeth.^[21] The notion of "closure" may seem intuitive, but "bad" requires careful consideration in a medical context.

A search for "Malocclusion" on PubMed yielded 33,309 articles,^[22] reflecting a lack of consensus on the term. Smaglyuk and colleagues’ study underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to diagnosing malocclusions.^[23]

«Diagnosis, treatment strategies, and prevention of anomalies and dento-facial deformities should be approached by considering the organism as a whole. This is especially important in children, whose physical structure is still forming. The interconnectedness of various organs and systems is crucial for effective treatment planning.»

Another notable observation from PubMed queries on interdisciplinary malocclusion diagnostics is the drastic drop to only four articles.^[24]

These findings suggest the emergence of phase 4 in Kuhn’s model, indicating a potential paradigmatic shift. Some prefer incremental innovations, while others favor a new path of "Paradigmatic Innovation."

What does "Malocclusion" mean?

In this clinical case of malocclusion, characterized by a unilateral posterior crossbite and anterior open bite, orthodontic appliances and possibly orthognathic surgery are recommended.^[25] The crossbite requires concurrent treatment due to its functional relationship with the open bite.^[26]

In this case, the patient refused treatment, insisting that their chewing function was fine. The dentist responded by explaining the long-term risks of leaving the malocclusion untreated, but respected the patient's decision to decline treatment.

The case illustrates the complexity of diagnosing malocclusion, which involves more than occlusal discrepancies. Specific electrophysiological tests, such as the motor-evoked potential and jaw reflex tests, can reveal functional symmetry in the masticatory system despite occlusal issues.

Figure 1a: Patient with malocclusion, open bite, and right posterior crossbite who should be treated with orthodontic therapy and/or orthognathic surgery.
Figure 1b: Motor-evoked potential test showing symmetry in the right and left masseter muscles.
Figura 1c: Jaw reflex test revealing functional symmetry in the masticatory system.
Figura 1d: Evoked mechanical silent period showing balanced neuromuscular dynamics despite malocclusion.

These electrophysiological results challenge conventional interpretations of malocclusion, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary diagnostics that consider neuromuscular function as well as occlusal discrepancies.

Occlusal Dismorphisms and Not Malocclusion ......which, as we will see shortly, is an entirely different matter.

Conclusion

Before concluding, we must clarify that the masticatory system is a "Complex System"^[27], not a simple biomechanical mechanism focused solely on dental occlusion. Occlusion is just one subset within a broader context that includes periodontal receptors, neuromuscular spindles, motor units, the central nervous system, and the temporomandibular joint. This interaction creates "Emergent Behavior The **masseter silent period** (MSP) is a relevant example of emergent behavior in masticatory neurophysiology. This reflex is triggered by sudden chin taps, leading to a brief cessation of electrical activity in the masseter muscle, and is closely related to the recruitment of motor units. During the MSP, there is a specific modulation of motor unit recruitment, regulated by the central nervous system, to respond to external stimuli. In the context of emergent behavior, this reflex is not limited to a single muscle but represents a coordinated response involving synergies among various neuronal centers and antagonist muscles. This integration stabilizes the mandible, adapting in real time to the force of the stimulus and producing an adaptive response. Mathematically, we can describe the probability $P(R)$ of an emergent response as a function of the input variables $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n}$ that influence motor unit activation: $P(R)=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})$ where $f$ represents the non-linear interaction among incoming stimuli (such as the type and intensity of the chin tap) and the central integration processes of the trigeminal system. This model helps to understand how the MSP reflects an integrated and adaptive response that emerges from complex neurophysiological circuits rather than a single neural pathway.," or masticatory behavior.

Emergent behavior cannot be fully explained by analyzing a single subset; instead, the integrity of the entire system must be assessed. A notable intellectual movement addressing this challenge is Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh’s work, "Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine."^[28]

The masticatory system's various subsets, such as teeth, occlusion, joints, and muscles, exhibit "Coherence" with the Central Trigeminal Nervous System, as shown in the electrophysiological tests. Therefore, "malocclusion" may not be the appropriate term; "Occlusal Dysmorphisms" would be more accurate.

«Viewing the masticatory system as a "Complex System" doesn’t deny existing rehabilitative therapies like prosthetics or orthodontics but instead aims to enrich them by considering a broader interdisciplinary perspective.»

This approach, exemplified in OrthoNeuroGnathodontic treatments, integrates aesthetic and neurophysiological aspects to achieve "Occlusal Stability" and prevent "Relapses."^[29]^[30] While not replacing traditional treatments, this model seeks to expand medical knowledge and interdisciplinary practices in dentistry.

In the meantime, let us pause with a question from Linus Sapiens, our curious yellow figure on the left. He reminds us of the importance of remaining open to new perspectives in masticatory science.

What do we mean by “Complex Systems” when we are talking about masticatory functions?

Bibliography & references

↑ Latin for 'since the very beginning'
↑ Heft MW, Fox CH, Duncan RP, «Assessing the Translation of Research and Innovation into Dental Practice», in JDR Clin Trans Res, 2019».
DOI:10.1177/2380084419879391 Oct 7:2380084419879391
↑ «Exposure Science in the 21st Century. A Vision and a Strategy», Committee on Human and Environmental Exposure Science in the 21st Century; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council.».
ISBN: 0-309-26468-5
↑ Liu L, Li Y, «The unexpected side effects and safety of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies», in Drugs Today, 2014, Barcellona».
DOI:10.1358/dot.2014.50.1.2076506 Jan;50(1):33-50
↑ Thomas Samuel Kuhn (Cincinnati, 18 luglio 1922 – Cambridge, 17 giugno 1996) was an American philosopher of science.
↑ Kuhn Thomas S, «The Structure of Scientific Revolutions», Univ. of Chicago Press, 2012, Chicago».
ISBN: 9780226458113
↑ The term was coined by Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier, in his Institutes of Metaphysic (1854); see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864).
↑ David Hume (1711–1776) was a Scottish philosopher.
↑ Srivastava S, «Verifiability is a core principle of science», in Behav Brain Sci, Cambridge University Press, 2018, Cambridge».
DOI:10.1017/S0140525X18000869 Jan;41:e150.
↑ Evans M, «Measuring statistical evidence using relative belief», in Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 2016».
DOI:10.1016/j.csbj.2015.12.001 Jan 7;14:91-6.
↑ Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B, «Scientists rise up against statistical significance», in Nature, 2019».
DOI:10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 Mar;567(7748):305-307.
↑ Rodgers JL, «The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: a quiet methodological revolution», in Am Psychol, 2010».
DOI:10.1037/a0018326 Jan;65(1):1-12.
↑ Meehl P, «The problem is epistemology, not statistics: replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions», 1997».
↑ Sprenger J, Hartmann S, «Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Variations on a Theme by the Reverend Thomas Bayes», Oxford University Press, 2019, Oxford».
↑ Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA, «Moving to a World Beyond p < 0.05», in Am Stat, 2019».
DOI:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 73, 1–19.
↑ European Union, Horizon 2020
↑ Boon M, Van Baalen S, «Epistemology for interdisciplinary research - shifting philosophical paradigms of science», in Eur J Philos Sci, 2019».
DOI:10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4 9(1):16.
↑ Boon M, «An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool», in Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2017».
DOI:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001 Oct;129:25-39.
↑ Guven Y, «Scientific basis of dentistry», in J Istanb Univ Fac Den, 2017».
DOI:10.17096/jiufd.04646 51(3): 64–71. Published online 2017 Oct 2. PMCID: PMC5624148 - PMID: 29114433
↑ Zhao XF, Gojo I, York T, Ning Y, Baer MR, «Diagnosis of biphenotypic acute leukemia: a paradigmatic approach», in Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2010». Prepublished online 2009 Oct 10. PMCID: PMC2776262 - PMID: 19918331. 3(1): 75–86.
↑ Attributed to Edward Angle, the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of occlusion.
↑ Pubmed, Malocclusion
↑ Smaglyuk LV, Voronkova HV, Karasiunok AY, Liakhovska AV, Solovei KO, «Interdisciplinary approach to diagnostics of malocclusions (review)», in Wiad Lek, 2019». 72(5 cz 1):918-922.
↑ Pubmed, interdisciplinary diagnostics of malocclusions
↑ Reichert I, Figel P, Winchester L, «Orthodontic treatment of anterior open bite: a review article--is surgery always necessary?», in Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014».
DOI:10.1007/s10006-013-0430-5 Sep;18(3):271-7.
↑ Miamoto CB, Silva Marques L, Abreu LG, Paiva SM, «Impact of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite on children’s quality of life», in Dental Press J Orthod, 2018». Jan-Feb; 23(1) 71–78.
↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
↑ Sadegh-Zadeh Kazem, «Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine», Springer, 2012, Dordrecht».
ISBN: 978-94-007-2259-0
DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-2260-6 .
↑ Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi, Larry M Wolford. Is Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex Stable Compared With Clockwise Rotation in the Correction of Dentofacial Deformities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2016 Oct;74(10):2066.e1-2066.e12.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jun 11.
↑ J Hoffmannová, R Foltán, M Vlk, K Klíma, G Pavlíková, O Bulik. Factors affecting the stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of a mandible.Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):286-97.

Masticationpedia is a charity, a not-for-profit organization operating in dentistry medical research,
particularly focusing on the field of the neurophysiology of the masticatory system

[1] Latin for 'since the very beginning'

[2] Heft MW, Fox CH, Duncan RP, «Assessing the Translation of Research and Innovation into Dental Practice», in JDR Clin Trans Res, 2019».
DOI:10.1177/2380084419879391 Oct 7:2380084419879391

[3] «Exposure Science in the 21st Century. A Vision and a Strategy», Committee on Human and Environmental Exposure Science in the 21st Century; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council.».
ISBN: 0-309-26468-5

[4] Liu L, Li Y, «The unexpected side effects and safety of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies», in Drugs Today, 2014, Barcellona».
DOI:10.1358/dot.2014.50.1.2076506 Jan;50(1):33-50

[5] Thomas Samuel Kuhn (Cincinnati, 18 luglio 1922 – Cambridge, 17 giugno 1996) was an American philosopher of science.

[6] Kuhn Thomas S, «The Structure of Scientific Revolutions», Univ. of Chicago Press, 2012, Chicago».
ISBN: 9780226458113

[7] The term was coined by Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier, in his Institutes of Metaphysic (1854); see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864).

[8] David Hume (1711–1776) was a Scottish philosopher.

[9] Srivastava S, «Verifiability is a core principle of science», in Behav Brain Sci, Cambridge University Press, 2018, Cambridge».
DOI:10.1017/S0140525X18000869 Jan;41:e150.

[10] Evans M, «Measuring statistical evidence using relative belief», in Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 2016».
DOI:10.1016/j.csbj.2015.12.001 Jan 7;14:91-6.

[:1-11] Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B, «Scientists rise up against statistical significance», in Nature, 2019».
DOI:10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 Mar;567(7748):305-307.

[:2-12] Rodgers JL, «The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: a quiet methodological revolution», in Am Psychol, 2010».
DOI:10.1037/a0018326 Jan;65(1):1-12.

[:3-13] Meehl P, «The problem is epistemology, not statistics: replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions», 1997».

[:4-14] Sprenger J, Hartmann S, «Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Variations on a Theme by the Reverend Thomas Bayes», Oxford University Press, 2019, Oxford».

[wasser-15] Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA, «Moving to a World Beyond p < 0.05», in Am Stat, 2019».
DOI:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 73, 1–19.

[16] European Union, Horizon 2020

[:0-17] Boon M, Van Baalen S, «Epistemology for interdisciplinary research - shifting philosophical paradigms of science», in Eur J Philos Sci, 2019».
DOI:10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4 9(1):16.

[18] Boon M, «An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool», in Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2017».
DOI:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001 Oct;129:25-39.

[19] Guven Y, «Scientific basis of dentistry», in J Istanb Univ Fac Den, 2017».
DOI:10.17096/jiufd.04646 51(3): 64–71. Published online 2017 Oct 2. PMCID: PMC5624148 - PMID: 29114433

[20] Zhao XF, Gojo I, York T, Ning Y, Baer MR, «Diagnosis of biphenotypic acute leukemia: a paradigmatic approach», in Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2010». Prepublished online 2009 Oct 10. PMCID: PMC2776262 - PMID: 19918331. 3(1): 75–86.

[21] Attributed to Edward Angle, the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of occlusion.

[22] Pubmed, Malocclusion

[23] Smaglyuk LV, Voronkova HV, Karasiunok AY, Liakhovska AV, Solovei KO, «Interdisciplinary approach to diagnostics of malocclusions (review)», in Wiad Lek, 2019». 72(5 cz 1):918-922.

[24] Pubmed, interdisciplinary diagnostics of malocclusions

[25] Reichert I, Figel P, Winchester L, «Orthodontic treatment of anterior open bite: a review article--is surgery always necessary?», in Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014».
DOI:10.1007/s10006-013-0430-5 Sep;18(3):271-7.

[26] Miamoto CB, Silva Marques L, Abreu LG, Paiva SM, «Impact of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite on children’s quality of life», in Dental Press J Orthod, 2018». Jan-Feb; 23(1) 71–78.

[27] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

[28] Sadegh-Zadeh Kazem, «Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine», Springer, 2012, Dordrecht».
ISBN: 978-94-007-2259-0
DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-2260-6 .

[29] Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi, Larry M Wolford. Is Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex Stable Compared With Clockwise Rotation in the Correction of Dentofacial Deformities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2016 Oct;74(10):2066.e1-2066.e12.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jun 11.

[30] J Hoffmannová, R Foltán, M Vlk, K Klíma, G Pavlíková, O Bulik. Factors affecting the stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of a mandible.Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):286-97.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{main menu}}
+{{main menu
+|link to German= Hauptseite
+|link to Spanish= Pàgina Principal
+|link to French= Page d'accueil
+|link to Italian= Introduzione
+}}
+{{ArtBy|autore=Gianni Frisardi}}'''Abstract:''' The masticatory system, encompassing teeth, occlusion, muscles, joints, and the central nervous system, is increasingly understood as a complex system rather than a simple biomechanical mechanism. This shift in perspective aligns with Thomas Kuhn's phases of paradigm shifts, where anomalies in traditional models trigger the search for new paradigms. In the context of Masticationpedia, a new interdisciplinary approach to diagnosing and treating malocclusion emerges, focusing on "Occlusal Dysmorphisms" rather than "malocclusion."
-==Abstract ==
+Recent advancements in electrophysiological testing, such as motor-evoked potentials and jaw reflexes, reveal functional symmetry in the masticatory system, even in patients with occlusal discrepancies. This finding challenges the traditional understanding of malocclusion, suggesting that neuromuscular dynamics play a crucial role in maintaining masticatory function. Consequently, interdisciplinary diagnostics that consider both occlusal and neuromuscular factors are necessary for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.
-[[File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|350x350px|left]]The introduction of Masticationpedia offers a deep and complex analysis on themes that span the evolution of science, with a particular focus on medicine and dentistry. It begins by examining the epistemological transformation of science through the lens of Kuhn's paradigms, emphasizing the importance of paradigmatic changes that science, including dentistry, has experienced and continues to experience. The document outlines the stages of paradigmatic change proposed by Kuhn, applying them to the field of dentistry, where it highlights a paradigmatic crisis that calls for an evolution towards new paradigms, especially in masticatory rehabilitation. The discussion extends to epistemology, considering how science acquires knowledge and addresses the issue of the verifiability of scientific theories. A critical emphasis is placed on the use and interpretation of the P value in scientific statistics, highlighting the ongoing debate about its reliability as an indicator.
-The text strongly emphasizes the crucial role of interdisciplinary research, proposing the use of "metacognitive scaffolds" to overcome communicative difficulties between different disciplines. It proposes a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to understanding masticatory disorders, particularly malocclusion, which is explored not only from the traditional orthodontic perspective but also through a broader lens that considers the masticatory system as a whole.
+This paradigm shift has implications for current rehabilitative therapies, including orthodontics and prosthetics, which have traditionally focused on achieving occlusal stability. However, considering the masticatory system as a complex system requires an integrative approach that incorporates both aesthetic and neurophysiological factors to prevent relapses and achieve long-term functional stability. The emerging field of OrthoNeuroGnathodontic treatments exemplifies this interdisciplinary approach, offering innovative strategies for addressing masticatory disorders.
-Through the examination of a clinical case study, the traditional interpretation of malocclusion is questioned, suggesting that understanding malocclusion requires a view that considers the complexity of the masticatory system and its interaction with the nervous system. The introduction concludes by highlighting the importance of paradigmatic innovations that go beyond incremental improvements, to embrace a change in thinking that profoundly influences masticatory science.
+By viewing the masticatory system through the lens of complexity science, the field of dentistry can expand its understanding of occlusal stability and dysfunction, ultimately leading to new treatment paradigms that enhance patient outcomes. This new model does not replace traditional treatments but seeks to enrich them with a broader interdisciplinary perspective, aligning with the evolving science of masticatory rehabilitation.
-This approach represents an invitation to overcome the limits of traditional dental conventions, proposing a model of understanding and treatment of masticatory disorders that is truly interdisciplinary, based on principles of open and inclusive science, oriented towards the acceptance of uncertainty, and the holistic evaluation of the patient.
-----{{ArtBy|autore=Gianni Frisardi}}
 ==Ab ovo<ref>Latin for 'since the very beginning'</ref>==
-Before diving into the analysis of Masticationpedia, it is necessary to introduce some preliminary considerations. These concern, in particular, two fundamental dimensions - social, scientific, and clinical - that are characteristic of both the current era and the one immediately preceding it.
+Before delving into the analysis of Masticationpedia, we must first introduce some preliminary considerations, particularly regarding two fundamental dimensions—social and scientific-clinical aspect—that characterize both the present era and the one immediately preceding it.
-=== The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn ===
+===The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn===
-In the course of the last century, there has been an exponential increase in technological and methodological "Innovations",<ref>{{cita libro
+Over the past century, technological and methodological innovations<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Heft MW
   | autore2 = Fox CH
@@ Line 32: / Line 34: @@
   | DOI = 10.1177/2380084419879391
   | OCLC =
-  }} Oct 7:2380084419879391</ref> especially in the field of dentistry. These advancements have significantly influenced decision-making strategies, opinions, schools of thought, and axioms, aiming explicitly at improving the quality of life, as highlighted in the "Science of Exposure in the 21st Century".<ref>{{cita libro
+  }} Oct 7:2380084419879391</ref> have exponentially increased, especially in dentistry. These developments have significantly impacted decision-making, schools of thought, and fundamental principles, with the explicit goal of improving quality of life, as emphasized in the "Science of Exposure in the 21st Century".<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore =
   | autore2 =
@@ Line 51: / Line 53: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }}</ref> However, this exponential growth implicitly hides conceptual ambiguities - or, in practical terms, "side effects" - which, although sometimes underestimated, have the power to challenge some scientific certainties, making them less rigid and more subject to probability.<ref>{{cita libro
+  }}</ref> However, this exponential growth hides conceptual ambiguities—or, practically speaking, "side effects"—that, though often underestimated, can challenge scientific certainties, making them more probabilistic.<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Liu L
   | autore2 = Li Y
@@ Line 65: / Line 67: @@
   | DOI = 10.1358/dot.2014.50.1.2076506
   | OCLC =
-  }} Jan;50(1):33-50</ref> The sensitive aspects of the current social, scientific, and clinical reality, which may seem contrasting, will be revealed to be complementary by the end of this reading; this is the "Progress of science" according to Kuhn's interpretation and "Epistemology".
+  }} Jan;50(1):33-50</ref> These sensitive aspects of current social, scientific, and clinical reality, seemingly in conflict, will ultimately prove to be complementary by the end of this analysis. This evolution follows the concept of "Progress of Science," according to Kuhn’s interpretation of "Epistemology."
-In analyzing the progress of science, Thomas Kuhn, in his most famous work, argues that science develops through distinct cycles, reflecting its operational dynamics.<ref>Thomas Samuel Kuhn (Cincinnati, 18 luglio 1922 – Cambridge, 17 giugno 1996) was an American philosopher of science.<br>See Treccani, ''[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/thomas-samuel-kuhn/ Kuhn, Thomas Samuel]''. Or Wikipedia, ''[[:wpen:Thomas Kuhn|Thomas Kuhn]]''.
+In his most famous work, Thomas Kuhn argues that science advances through distinct cycles reflecting its operational dynamics.<ref>[[wikipedia:Thomas_Kuhn|Thomas Samuel Kuhn]] (Cincinnati, 18 luglio 1922 – Cambridge, 17 giugno 1996) was an American philosopher of science.</ref><ref>{{cita libro
-</ref><ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Kuhn Thomas S
   | titolo = The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
@@ Line 81: / Line 82: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }}</ref> Kuhn advances the idea that science is structured around paradigms and establishes a clear demarcation between science and pseudoscience, based on the presence of a shared paradigm. For him, the evolution of scientific progress is seen as a continuous curve, yet interrupted by discontinuities represented by paradigm shifts.
+  }}</ref> Kuhn posits that science is structured around paradigms and establishes a clear demarcation between science and pseudoscience based on the presence of a shared paradigm. The evolution of scientific progress is depicted as a continuous curve interrupted by discontinuities, represented by paradigm shifts.
-Taking on the role of a skilled problem solver, the scientist is engaged in resolving these anomalies. These moments of discontinuity, or scientific revolutions, occur when the existing paradigm can no longer adequately interpret new anomalies, thereby pushing the scientific community towards the exploration and eventual adoption of new paradigms that better align with emerging observations.
+In these periods of crisis, scientists act as problem solvers, seeking to resolve anomalies. These "scientific revolutions" occur when the existing paradigm can no longer interpret new anomalies, pushing the scientific community toward new paradigms that better align with observations.
-==== '''Kuhn's phases in Dentistry''' ====
+===='''Kuhn's phases in Dentistry'''====
-Thomas Kuhn identifies in the evolution of a scientific paradigm five distinct phases, a process that holds crucial importance for Masticationpedia. To stay in line with the project's objectives, we will focus on the description of the three most significant phases, as outlined in the book's index.[[File:The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn.jpg|right|thumb|The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn]]
+Thomas Kuhn identifies five distinct phases in the evolution of a scientific paradigm—a process crucial for Masticationpedia. However, to align with the project’s scope, we will focus on the three most significant phases, as indicated in the book’s index.
-'''Thomas Kuhn''' in his most famous work states that ''science cyclically passes through some phases indicative of its operation''. According to Kuhn, ''science is paradigmatic'', and the demarcation between science and pseudoscience can be traced back to the existence of a '''paradigm'''. The evolution of scientific progress is assimilated to ''a continuous curve which undergoes discontinuity in paradigm changes''.
-===Kuhn's phases in Dentistry ===
-Kuhn, on the other hand, divides the evolution of a paradigm into five phases; this is a fundamental process for Masticationpedia, but to stay tuned with the project we will limit ourselves to describing the three most significant phases shared in the project and indicated in the index of the book:
 {|
-|
-|
-*<u>'''''Phase 2'''''</u>, or the Normal Science<br>For instance, in the second phase of Kuhn's paradigms, called "Normal Science," scientists are considered problem solvers engaged in strengthening the correspondence between the paradigm and natural reality. This phase is based on a set of fundamental principles established by the paradigm itself, which are not subject to dispute but are instead used to define the guidelines for future research projects. During this phase, the development of the necessary measurement tools to conduct experiments takes place, and the majority of the scientific literature is produced. The results obtained in this phase contribute significantly to the advancement of scientific knowledge. In normal science, both successes and failures occur; the latter are identified by Kuhn as "anomalies," i.e., events that contradict the prevailing paradigm.
 |-
-|&nbsp;
+| <blockquote>'''Phase 2''', or '''Normal Science''':
-|
+In this phase, scientists solve problems to strengthen the correspondence between the paradigm and natural reality. This phase establishes the principles on which future research is based, and it produces most of the scientific literature. Here, "anomalies" arise—events that contradict the dominant paradigm.</blockquote>
-*<u>'''''Phase 4'''''</u>, or the '''Crisis of the Paradigm'''<br>In response to the crisis, there will be the formation of several new paradigms during this period. These emerging paradigms, therefore, will not originate from the successes of the previous theory, but rather from the rejection of the established models of the dominant paradigm. Continuing along this line, Masticationpedia will dedicate attention to the crisis of the masticatory rehabilitative paradigm, through the review of theories, theorems, axioms, currents of thought, and diagnostic research criteria. Subsequently, the focus will shift to the fifth phase.
 |-
-|&nbsp;
+|<blockquote>'''Phase 4''', or the '''Crisis of the Paradigm''':
-|
+During this phase, new paradigms emerge as the dominant one is rejected. Masticationpedia will address the crisis in masticatory rehabilitation by reviewing theories, axioms, and diagnostic criteria, leading to Phase 5.</blockquote>
-*<u>'''''Phase 5'''''</u>, or the '''Scientific Revolution'''<br>Phase 5 is characterized by the scientific revolution. During the period of extraordinary scientific activities, a debate will develop within the scientific community on which new paradigm to adopt. However, the prevailing paradigm will not necessarily be the "truest" or most efficient one, but rather the one that manages to arouse the interest of a sufficient number of scientists and earn the trust of the community. According to Kuhn, competing paradigms have nothing in common, not even the foundations, making them "incommensurable." The choice of paradigm, as mentioned, occurs on socio-psychological or biological bases, with younger scientists replacing the older ones. This battle between paradigms will resolve the crisis, the new paradigm will be named, and science will return to Phase 1. Following the same principle of Phase 4, Masticationpedia will introduce, in the chapter named "Extraordinary Sciences," a new paradigmatic model in the field of Masticatory System rehabilitation, examining its principles, motivations, scientific clinical experiences, and particularly, a radical change in the field of medical diagnostics. This change is fundamentally based on "System Inference," rather than symptom-based inference, assigning primary importance to the objectivity of data.
+|-
+|<blockquote>'''Phase 5''', or the '''Scientific Revolution''':
+During this period, the scientific community debates which paradigm to adopt. The chosen paradigm might not be the "truest" but the one gaining the most support. In Masticationpedia, a new model in masticatory rehabilitation will be introduced, focusing on data-driven inferences rather than symptom-based models.</blockquote>
 |}
-It's almost taken for granted that Kuhn's scientific philosophy gives priority to discipline, since an anomaly within the genetic paradigm will be more easily recognized by a geneticist rather than a neurophysiologist. This concept, however, seems to contradict the epistemological evolution of Science, thereby making a detailed analysis of this apparent discrepancy appropriate.
+Kuhn’s concept gives priority to discipline-specific expertise, yet this contradicts the interdisciplinary nature of modern science. A detailed analysis of this discrepancy is therefore appropriate.
 ----
-== Epistemology==
+==Epistemology==
 <center>
 {|
 |-
-| align="right" width="250" |<small>''The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all the swans are white?<br>Really?''</small>
+| align="right" width="250" |<small>''The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all swans are white?''</small>
 | align="center" |[[File:Black_Swan_(Cygnus_atratus)_RWD.jpg|175px|center]]
 |-
-|&nbsp;
+| align="center" |[[File:Duck-Rabbit illusion.jpg|203px|center]]
-|-
+| width="250" |<small>''Kuhn used optical illusion to demonstrate how a paradigm shift can cause a person to see the same information in a completely different way.''</small>
-| align="center" |[[File:Duck-Rabbit illusion.jpg|203px|center]]
-| width="250" |<small>''Kuhn used optical illusion to demonstrate how a paradigm shift can cause a person to see the same information in a completely different way: which animal is the one here aside?<br>Sure?''</small>
 |}
 </center>
+'''Epistemology''' (from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "certain knowledge" or "science", and λόγος, logos, "discourse") is the branch of philosophy that studies the necessary conditions for acquiring scientific knowledge and the methods through which it is achieved.<ref>The term was coined by Scottish philosopher [[:wpen:James Frederick Ferrier|James Frederick Ferrier]], in his ''Institutes of Metaphysic'' (1854); see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''[https://www.iep.utm.edu/ferrier/ James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864)]''.</ref> Specifically, it refers to the investigation of the foundations, validity, and limits of scientific knowledge. In English-speaking countries, the term "epistemology" is often synonymous with the theory of knowledge or gnoseology, which examines the study of knowledge in general.
-'''Epistemology''' (from the Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "certain knowledge" or "science", and λόγος, logos, "discourse") represents that branch of philosophy dedicated to the study of the necessary conditions for acquiring scientific knowledge and the methods through which such knowledge can be achieved.<ref>The term is believed to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher [[:wpen:James Frederick Ferrier|James Frederick Ferrier]], in his '' Institutes of Metaphysic '' (p.46), of 1854; see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''[https://www.iep.utm.edu/ferrier/ James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864)]''.</ref> This term specifically refers to that section of gnoseology that investigates the foundations, the validity, and the limits of scientific knowledge. In English-speaking countries, the concept of epistemology is commonly employed almost as a synonym for gnoseology or theory of knowledge, that is, the discipline that examines the study of knowledge in general.
+The central problem of epistemology, today as in the times of Hume,<ref>[[wikipedia:David_Hume|David Hume]] (1711–1776) was a Scottish philosopher.</ref><ref>{{cita libro
-It is important to emphasize that the central problem of epistemology, today as in the times of Hume, is the issue of verifiability.<ref>[[:wpen:David Hume|David Hume]] (Edimburgo, 7 maggio 1711[1] – Edimburgo, 25 agosto 1776) was a Scottish philosopher. He is considered the third and perhaps the most radical of the British Empiricists, after the Englishman John Locke and the Anglo-Irish George Berkeley.</ref><ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Srivastava S
   | titolo = Verifiability is a core principle of science
@@ Line 141: / Line 132: @@
   | DOI = 10.1017/S0140525X18000869
   | OCLC =
-  }} Jan;41:e150. </ref>
+  }} Jan;41:e150.</ref> is the issue of verifiability. According to Hempel’s paradox, every example that does not contradict a theory confirms it, which is described as:
-The Hempel's paradox asserts that the observation of every white swan provides support to the statement that all ravens are black;<ref>Here we obviously refer to the well-known paradox called "of the crows", or "of the black crows", formulated by the philosopher and mathematician [[:wpen:Carl Gustav Hempel|Carl Gustav Hempel]], better explained in Wikipedia's article ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raven_paradox&oldid=942633026 Raven paradox]'':<br>See {{cita libro
+<math>A \Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math>{{Tooltip||Let’s consider the statement: “If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain.” We can represent this in logic as <math>A \Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math>, where:<math>A</math> represents "The person has TMDs."<math>B</math> represents "The person experiences orofacial pain." In this case, "If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain" is equivalent to saying “either the person does not have TMDs (<math>\lnot A</math>), or they experience orofacial pain (<math>B</math>)”. The formula is true in the following cases: If the person does not have TMDs (<math>\lnot A</math>), the statement is true, regardless of orofacial pain. If the person has TMDs (<math>A</math>) and experiences orofacial pain (<math>B</math>), the statement is true.
- |autore = Good IJ
+The statement is false only if the person has TMDs (<math>A</math>) but does not experience orofacial pain (<math>\lnot B</math>), contradicting the implication condition.}}
- |titolo=The Paradox of Confirmation
- |opera=Br J Philos Sci
- |volume=11
- |numero=42
- |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/685588
- |anno = 1960|pag=145-149}}</ref> in other words, every example that does not contradict the theory confirms a part of it. According to this paradox:
-<math>A\Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math>
+No theory can be definitively true; while there are finite experiments to confirm it, an infinite number could refute it.<ref>{{cita libro
-According to the criterion of falsifiability, no theory can be considered definitively true, as although there is only a finite number of experiments that can confirm it, theoretically there is an infinite number of experiments that could refute it.<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Evans M
   | titolo = Measuring statistical evidence using relative belief
@@ Line 167: / Line 150: @@
   | DOI = 10.1016/j.csbj.2015.12.001
   | OCLC =
-  }} Jan 7;14:91-6. </ref>
+  }} Jan 7;14:91-6.</ref>
 {{qnq|But it’s not all so obvious...}}
-...because the very concept of epistemology meets continuous implementations, like in medicine:
+...because epistemology evolves continually, even in medicine:
-{|
+'''P-value''': In medicine, for example, we rely on statistical inference to confirm experimental results, specifically the 'P-value{{Tooltip||2=The p-value represents the probability that observed results are due to chance, assuming the null hypothesis <math> H_0 </math> is true. It should not be used as a binary criterion (e.g., <math> p < 0.05 </math>) for scientific decisions, as values near the threshold require additional verification, such as cross-validation. ''p-hacking'' (repeating tests to achieve significance) increases false positives. Rigorous experimental design and transparency about all tests conducted can mitigate this risk. Type I error increases with multiple tests: for <math> N </math> independent tests at threshold <math> \alpha </math>, the Family-Wise Error Rate (FWER) is <math> FWER = 1 - (1 - \alpha)^N </math>. Bonferroni correction divides the threshold by the number of tests, <math> p < \frac{\alpha}{N} </math>, but can increase false negatives. The False Discovery Rate (FDR) by Benjamini-Hochberg is less conservative, allowing more true discoveries with an acceptable proportion of false positives. The Bayesian approach uses prior knowledge to balance prior and data with a posterior distribution, offering a valid alternative to the p-value. To combine p-values from multiple studies, meta-analysis uses methods like Fisher's: <math> \chi^2 = -2 \sum \ln(p_i) </math>. In summary, the p-value remains useful when contextualized and integrated with other measures, such as confidence intervals and Bayesian approaches.}}' a "significance test" that assesses data validity. Yet, even this entrenched concept is now being challenged. A recent study highlighted a campaign in the journal "Nature" against the use of the P-value.<ref name=":1">{{cita libro
-|-
-|
-*'''''<math>P-value</math>''''':   In medicine, for example, to confirm an experiment or validate a series of data collected through laboratory instruments or surveys, reliance is placed on "Statistical Inference," and in particular on a well-known value called "significance test" (P-value). However, even this concept, now rooted in the practice of researchers, is being questioned. A recent study has focused attention on a campaign conducted in the journal "Nature" against the use of the "significance test."<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Amrhein V
   | autore2 = Greenland S
@@ Line 191: / Line 171: @@
   | DOI = 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9
   | OCLC =
-  }} Mar;567(7748):305-307.</ref> With over 800 signatories, including eminent scientists, this campaign can be seen as an important turning point and a "Silent Revolution" in the field of statistics, touching logical and epistemological aspects.<ref>{{cita libro
+  }} Mar;567(7748):305-307.</ref> Signed by over 800 scientists, this campaign marks a "silent revolution" in statistical inference, encouraging a reflective and modest approach to significance.<ref name=":2">{{cita libro
   | autore = Rodgers JL
   | titolo = The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: a quiet methodological revolution
@@ Line 204: / Line 184: @@
   | DOI = 10.1037/a0018326
   | OCLC =
-  }} Jan;65(1):1-12.</ref><ref>{{cita libro
+  }} Jan;65(1):1-12.</ref><ref name=":3">{{cita libro
   | autore = Meehl P
   | titolo = The problem is epistemology, not statistics: replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions
@@ Line 217: / Line 197: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }}, in eds Harlow L. L., Mulaik S. A., Steiger J. H.,  ''What If There Were No Significance Tests?'' - editors.  (Mahwah: Erlbaum, 393–425. [Google Scholar]</ref><ref>{{cita libro
+  }}</ref><ref name=":4">{{cita libro
   | autore = Sprenger J
   | autore2 = Hartmann S
@@ Line 231: / Line 211: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }}</ref> The critique is aimed at overly simplified statistical analyses, still present in numerous publications. This has stimulated a debate, sponsored by the American Statistical Association, which led to the creation of a special issue of "The American Statistician Association" titled "Statistical Inference in the 21st Century: A World Beyond p < 0.05", containing 43 articles by statisticians looking towards the future[16]. This special issue proposes new ways to communicate the significance of research findings beyond the arbitrary threshold of a P-value and offers guidelines for research that accepts uncertainty, is reflective, open, and modest in claims.<ref name="wasser">{{cita libro
+  }}</ref> The American Statistical Association contributed to this discussion by releasing a special issue of "The American Statistician Association" titled "Statistical Inference in the 21st Century: A World Beyond p < 0.05." It offers new ways to express research significance and embraces uncertainty.<ref name="wasser">{{cita libro
   | autore = Wasserstein RL
   | autore2 = Schirm AL
@@ Line 246: / Line 226: @@
   | DOI = 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
   | OCLC =
-  }} 73, 1–19. </ref> The future will reveal whether these attempts to provide more solid statistical support to science, beyond traditional significance tests, will find resonance in future publications.<ref>{{cita libro
+  }} 73, 1–19.</ref>
- | autore = Dettweiler Ulrich
- | titolo = The Rationality of Science and the Inevitability of Defining Prior Beliefs in Empirical Research
+'''Interdisciplinarity''': Solving science-based problems increasingly demands interdisciplinary research (IDR), as underscored by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project.<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref> Yet IDR poses cognitive challenges, partly due to the dominant "Physical Paradigm of Science" that limits its recognition. The "Engineering Paradigm of Science" has been proposed as an alternative, focusing on technological tools and collaboration. Researchers need "metacognitive scaffolds"—tools to enhance interdisciplinary communication and knowledge construction.<ref name=":0">{{cita libro
- | url = https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01866/full
- | volume =
- | opera = Front Psychol
- | anno = 2019
- | editore =
- | città =
- | ISBN =
- | LCCN =
- | DOI = 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01866
- | OCLC =
- }} Aug 13;10:1866.</ref> This evolution aligns with Kuhn's concept of scientific progress, reflecting a reworking of some descriptive statistical content within the discipline.
-|-
-|
-* '''Interdisciplinarity''': <br>In the field of science policy, it is universally recognized that solving science-based problems requires an interdisciplinary research approach (IDR), as highlighted by the European Union's Horizon 2020 project.<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref> Recent studies have explored the reasons for the cognitive and epistemic difficulties that researchers encounter in conducting IDR. One identified cause is the decline of philosophical interest towards the epistemology of IDR, attributed to the dominant "Physical Paradigm of Science." This paradigm limits the recognition of significant developments in IDR, both in the context of the philosophy of science and in the practice of research itself. In response, an alternative philosophical paradigm has been proposed, called the "Engineering Paradigm of Science," which offers alternative philosophical perspectives on fundamental aspects such as the purpose of science, the nature of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge, and the role of technological tools. Consequently, it highlights the need for researchers to make use of metacognitive support structures, called metacognitive scaffolds, to facilitate the analysis and reconstruction of the processes by which knowledge is constructed across different disciplines. In the context of IDR, such metacognitive scaffolds are essential for promoting effective communication between disciplines, allowing scholars to analyze and articulate how each discipline contributes to the construction of knowledge.<ref name=":0">{{cita libro
   | autore = Boon M
   | autore2 = Van Baalen S
@@ Line 290: / Line 256: @@
   | OCLC =
   }} Oct;129:25-39.</ref>
-|}
+==Interdisciplinarity==
+A superficial view might suggest a conflict between the disciplinarity of the "Physics Paradigm of Science{{Tooltip||2=The "Physical Paradigm of Science" describes an epistemological approach prevalent in the physical sciences, focusing on deterministic models and rigorous experimental methodologies. This paradigm relies on empirical observations and the scientific method to seek universal laws governing natural phenomena.'''Key Characteristics''' 1. ''Determinism'': Assumes that natural phenomena follow fixed laws, allowing for accurate predictions based on initial conditions.
+. ''Measurability and Reproducibility'': Emphasizes quantitative measurements and reproducible experiments to confirm results across different contexts.
+. ''Isolation of Variables'': Focuses on analyzing specific effects by isolating variables, often idealizing systems under controlled conditions.
+While effective in classical natural sciences, the physical paradigm has limitations in complex fields like neurophysiology, where dynamic interactions and variability challenge deterministic models. '''Application in Masticatory Neurophysiology''': In masticatory neurophysiology, the physical paradigm aids in developing basic models but falls short in explaining emergent behaviors, such as motor unit recruitment in response to complex stimuli. '''Towards an Integrated Paradigm''': Emerging is an "Engineering Paradigm of Science," which offers a more adaptive approach that considers complexity, allowing for more flexible predictive models that account for non-linear interactions in biological systems.}}" (which highlights anomalies) and the interdisciplinarity of the "Engineering Paradigm of Science{{Tooltip||The '''Engineering Paradigm of Science''' emphasizes practical applications, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the understanding of complex systems. It contrasts with traditional deterministic models, focusing instead on real-world problem-solving, particularly in fields like biology, medicine, and social sciences.'''Key Features''' ''Problem-Solving Orientation'': Prioritizes solutions to complex issues over purely theoretical models. ''Interdisciplinary Collaboration'': Encourages integration of knowledge from various disciplines, enhancing understanding through shared expertise. ''Complex Systems Focus'': Acknowledges emergent behavior and the interconnectivity of system components, recognizing that outcomes can be unpredictable and non-linear.
+''Iterative Process'': Embraces an adaptive approach, refining models based on empirical data and feedback to improve responsiveness.'''Technological Integration''': Applies engineering principles to enhance research design and data analysis, utilizing simulations and computational modeling. '''Application in Masticatory Neurophysiology''' In masticatory neurophysiology, this paradigm fosters innovative diagnostic tools and treatment approaches. By integrating neurophysiology, biomechanics, and material science, it provides a comprehensive view of jaw function and dysfunction.The Engineering Paradigm of Science promotes collaboration and innovation, ultimately leading to advancements that enhance our understanding of complex systems and improve practical outcomes across various fields.}}" (focused on metacognitive scaffolds). However, these perspectives are not in conflict; they are complementary and drive "Paradigmatic Innovation" in science.
-==Anomaly ''vs.'' Interdisciplinarity ==
+It could be said that "Innovations" represent "Progresses of Science," as illustrated in the article "Scientific Bases of Dentistry" by Yegane Guven, which explores the impact of biological and digital revolutions on dentistry.<ref>{{cita libro
-A superficial view might suggest that the epistemic evolution of science is marked by an apparent opposition between the aspects of disciplinarity, highlighted by the "Physics Paradigm of Science" (which sheds light on anomalies), and those of interdisciplinarity, represented by the "Engineering Paradigm of Science" (and the related concept of metacognitive scaffold). However, as will be explored in this chapter, these two perspectives are not actually in conflict; on the contrary, they prove to be complementary, as both contribute to the generation of a "Paradigmatic Innovation" without any form of conflict.
-It could then be argued that "Innovations" themselves represent "Progresses of Science," as illustrated in the article "Scientific Bases of Dentistry" by Yegane Guven. This work explores the impact of biological and digital revolutions on education and daily clinical practice in dentistry, covering topics such as personalized regenerative dentistry, nanotechnologies, virtual reality simulations, genomic information, and stem cell research.<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Guven Y
   | titolo = Scientific basis of dentistry
@@ Line 309: / Line 276: @@
   | DOI = 10.17096/jiufd.04646
   | OCLC =
-  }} 51(3): 64–71. Published online 2017 Oct 2. PMCID: PMC5624148 - PMID: 29114433 </ref> Although the innovations mentioned are technological and methodological in nature, it is crucial to recognize that true scientific progress does not occur exclusively through "Incremental Innovations" or "Radical Innovations," but is fundamentally achieved through "Paradigmatic Innovations."
+  }} 51(3): 64–71. Published online 2017 Oct 2. PMCID: PMC5624148 - PMID: 29114433 </ref> True scientific progress is not solely achieved through "Incremental Innovations" or "Radical Innovations" but through "Paradigmatic Innovations."
-In the strictest sense of the term, "Paradigmatic Innovations" are a change in thinking and awareness that spreads throughout all of humanity, affecting different social layers, from the Copernican revolution to the recent trend of approaching biological phenomena with a stochastic method.<ref>{{cita libro
+"Paradigmatic Innovations" represent a change in thinking that spreads through humanity, affecting society on many levels, from the Copernican revolution to the stochastic methods applied to biological phenomena.<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Zhao XF
   | autore2 = Gojo I
@@ Line 330: / Line 297: @@
   }} Prepublished online 2009 Oct 10. PMCID: PMC2776262 - PMID: 19918331. 3(1): 75–86.</ref>
-This epistemological context, which includes initiatives such as the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD), Evidence-Based Medicine, and others, is further explored in the Masticationpedia project. The latter aims to highlight the dynamics and dialectics of progress in the science of masticatory rehabilitations, emphasizing the anomalies that stimulate a change in thought and, consequently, a "Paradigmatic Innovation."
+This epistemological context, which includes initiatives like the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and Evidence-Based Medicine, aligns with Masticationpedia’s aim to highlight anomalies that stimulate changes in scientific thought, ultimately leading to "Paradigmatic Innovation."
-Before proceeding, it might be appropriate to observe a very concrete and significant case.
+==Dental Malocclusion==
-==Malocclusion==
+"Malocclusion" derives from the Latin "malum," meaning "bad" or "wrong," and refers to improper closure of the teeth.<ref>Attributed to [[:wpen:Edward Angle|Edward Angle]], the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of ''occlusion''.</ref> The notion of "closure" may seem intuitive, but "bad" requires careful consideration in a medical context.
-"Malocclusion" derives from the Latin "malum," meaning "bad" or "wrong," and literally refers to an improper closure of the teeth.<ref>The creation of the term is generally attributed to [[:wpen:Edward Angle|Edward Angle]], considered the father of modern orthodontics, who coined it as a specification of ''occlusion'' to signal the incorrect opposition in closing of the lower teeth and upper, especially the first molar; see {{cita libro
+A search for "Malocclusion" on PubMed yielded 33,309 articles,<ref>Pubmed, ''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22malocclusion%22 Malocclusion]''</ref> reflecting a lack of consensus on the term. Smaglyuk and colleagues’ study underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to diagnosing malocclusions.<ref>{{cita libro
- | autore = Gruenbaum T
- | titolo = Famous Figures in Dentistry
- | url =
- | volume =
- | opera = Mouth – JASDA
- | anno = 2010
- | editore =
- | città =
- | ISBN =
- | LCCN =
- | DOI =
- | OCLC =
- }}, 30(1):18. </ref> The notion of "closure" may seem intuitive; however, the adjective "bad" requires careful consideration, as its application in the medical context is less obvious than it may appear.
-To approach an understanding of the term, this introduction poses a seemingly simple yet profoundly complex question, which in turn raises a series of related inquiries in the field of masticatory rehabilitation and, more specifically, in orthodontic disciplines: what exactly is meant by "Malocclusion"? It's interesting to note that, in 2019, a search for the term "Malocclusion" on PubMed yielded a whopping 33,309 articles,<ref>Pubmed, ''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22malocclusion%22 Malocclusion]''</ref> indicating a lack of uniform terminological consensus on the subject. Among these articles, some may provide conclusions of significant relevance, as strikingly demonstrated by the work of Smaglyuk and colleagues. This particularly significant study explores the interdisciplinary approach in diagnosing malocclusions:<ref name="Smaglyuk">{{cita libro
   | autore = Smaglyuk LV
   | autore2 = Voronkova HV
@@ Line 359: / Line 311: @@
   | titolo = Interdisciplinary approach to diagnostics of malocclusions (review)
   | url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31175796
   | volume =
   | opera = Wiad Lek
   | anno = 2019
@@ Line 368: / Line 320: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }} 72(5 cz 1):918-922.
+  }} 72(5 cz 1):918-922.</ref>
-</ref>
-{{q2|The diagnostics, treatment tactics and prevention of dento-facial anomalies and deformations should be considered in the context of the integrity of the child's unformed organism, the interdependence of the form and functions of its organs and systems}}
+{{q2|Diagnosis, treatment strategies, and prevention of anomalies and dento-facial deformities should be approached by considering the organism as a whole. This is especially important in children, whose physical structure is still forming. The interconnectedness of various organs and systems is crucial for effective treatment planning.}}
-Another noteworthy fact is that if in the same 2019 Pubmed was questioned on interdisciplinarity in the diagnosis of malocclusions, the result dropped drastically to just four articles<ref>Pubmed, ''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=interdisciplinary+diagnostics+of+malocclusions interdisciplinary diagnostics of malocclusions]''</ref>.
+Another notable observation from PubMed queries on interdisciplinary malocclusion diagnostics is the drastic drop to only four articles.<ref>Pubmed, ''[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=interdisciplinary+diagnostics+of+malocclusions interdisciplinary diagnostics of malocclusions]''</ref>
-These premises to the "Malocclusion” question indicate, on one hand, an alert about anomalies that tend to activate Kuhn phase 4 and, on the other, a bifurcation in the epistemic choice on the subject: one that generates Incremental Innovations (others 33,309 articles, perhaps) and another that prefers a new gnoseological path of "Paradigmatic Innovation”.
+These findings suggest the emergence of phase 4 in Kuhn’s model, indicating a potential paradigmatic shift. Some prefer incremental innovations, while others favor a new path of "Paradigmatic Innovation."
-Let’s try to approach part of the concept that considers the "Paradigmatic Innovation” as essential, asking ourselves for example:
-[[File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|alt=|thumb|'''Figure 1a:'''<br>Patient with malocclusion, open bite and right posterior crossbite who in rehabilitation terms should be treated with orthodontic therapy and/or orthognathic surgery.|500x500px]]
 {{qnq|What does "Malocclusion" mean?|}}
-We will answer this question by reporting a clinical case of evident “Malocclusion”.
+In this clinical case of malocclusion, characterized by a unilateral posterior crossbite and anterior open bite, orthodontic appliances and possibly orthognathic surgery are recommended.<ref>{{cita libro
-Patient is with an occlusion that orthodontists call “Malocclusion” because it has a posterior unilateral crossbite and anterior openbite<ref>{{cita libro
- | autore = Littlewood SJ
- | autore2 = Kandasamy S
- | autore3 = Huang G
- | titolo = Retention and relapse in clinical practice
- | url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28297088
- | volume =
- | opera = Aust Dent J
- | anno = 2017
- | editore =
- | città =
- | ISBN =
- | LCCN =
- | DOI = 10.1111/adj.12475
- | OCLC =
- }} Mar;62 Suppl 1:51-57.</ref>; it is a malocclusion that can be treated with a fixed orthodontic therapy and possibly in combination with an orthognathic intervention<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Reichert I
   | autore2 = Figel P
@@ Line 414: / Line 345: @@
   | DOI = 10.1007/s10006-013-0430-5
   | OCLC =
-  }} Sep;18(3):271-7. </ref>. Crossbite is another element of disturbance in normal occlusion<ref>{{cita libro
+  }} Sep;18(3):271-7.</ref> The crossbite requires concurrent treatment due to its functional relationship with the open bite.<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Miamoto CB
   | autore2 = Silva Marques L
@@ Line 430: / Line 361: @@
   | DOI =
   | OCLC =
-  }} Jan-Feb; 23(1) 71–78.</ref> because of which it is obligatorily treated together with the openbite<ref>{{cita libro
+  }} Jan-Feb; 23(1) 71–78.</ref>
- | autore = Alachioti XS
- | autore2 = Dimopoulou E
- | autore3 = Vlasakidou A
- | autore4 = Athanasiou AE
- | titolo = Amelogenesis imperfecta and anterior open bite: Etiological, classification, clinical and management interrelationships
- | url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24987656/
- | volume =
- | opera = J Orthod Sci
- | anno = 2014
- | editore =
- | città =
- | ISBN =
- | LCCN =
- | DOI = 10.4103/2278-0203.127547
- | OCLC =
- }} Jan-Mar; 3(1): 1–6.</ref><ref>{{cita libro
- | autore = Mizrahi E
- | titolo = A review of anterior open bite
- | url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/284793
- | volume =
- | opera = Br J Orthod
- | anno = 1978
- | editore =
- | città =
- | ISBN =
- | LCCN =
- | DOI =
- | OCLC =
- }} Jan;5(1):21-7.</ref>. It is self-evident that an observer with a ''deterministic mindset'' facing a phenomenon of such evident occlusal incongruity considers crossbite and openbite the cause of malocclusion (cause/effect) or vice versa; and it is obvious, as well, that the observer recommends an orthodontic treatment to restore a “Normocclusion”. This way of reasoning means that the model (masticatory system) is “normalized to occlusion”, and if read backwards it means that the occlusal discrepancy is the cause of malocclusion and, therefore, of disease of the Masticatory System. (Figure 1a).
-But let's hear what the two players say, the dentist and the patient, in the informative dialogue.
-The dentist tells the patient that he is suffering from severe malocclusion and that it should be treated to improve its aesthetics and chewing function. The patient, however, replies firmly: «''No way, I haven't the slightest idea to do it at all, doctor, because I might even have an unrepresentative smile, but I eat very well.''»<br>The dentist’s reply is ready, so the practitioner insists by saying: «''but you have a serious malocclusion with an openbite and a unilateral posterior crossbite, you should already have problems with bruxism and swallowing, as well as posture.''»<br>The patient closes the confrontation in a decisive way: «''absolutely false: I chew very well, I swallow very well and at night I snore alot so I don’t grind; besides, I’m a sportsman and I don’t have any postural disturbance''».
-Now the conclusion remains very critical because we might be finding ourselves in front of a verbal language of the patient which is misleading because it is not specific and does not respond to a detailed physiopathogenetic knowledge of the occlusal state; or, paradoxically, we are otherwise facing a machine language converted into verbal language which guarantees the integrity of the system. At this point the situation is truly embarrassing because neither the patient nor the observer (dentist) will be able to say with certainty that the System is in a “Malocclusion” state.
-It is precisely at this moment that one remembers the criticism of the American Statistician Association titled “''Statistical inference in the 21st century: A World Beyond p <0.05''”, which urges the researcher to accept uncertainty, be sensible reflective, open and modest in his statements<ref name="wasser" />: which basically translates into a search for interdisciplinarity.
-Interdisciplinarity, in fact, could answer such a complex question; but it is nonetheless necessary to interpret the biological phenomenon of "“Malocclusion”" with a ''stochastic forma mentis of'' which we will discuss in detail later..
+In this case, the patient refused treatment, insisting that their chewing function was fine. The dentist responded by explaining the long-term risks of leaving the malocclusion untreated, but respected the patient's decision to decline treatment.
-A stochastic observer may observe that there is a low probability that the patient, at the moment <math>T_n </math>, is in a state of occlusal disease, as the patient's natural language indicates ideal psychophysical health; he/she then concludes that the occlusal discrepancy could not be a cause of neuromuscular and psychophysical functional disorder. In this case, therefore, the Masticatory System can not only be normalized to the occlusion only, but a more complex model is needed too, so it has to be normalized to the Trigeminal Nervous System. The patient was then served a series of trigeminal electrophysiological tests to assess the integrity of his/her Trigeminal Nervous System in these “"Malocclusion”" clinical conditions.
+The case illustrates the complexity of diagnosing malocclusion, which involves more than occlusal discrepancies. Specific electrophysiological tests, such as the motor-evoked potential and jaw reflex tests, can reveal functional symmetry in the masticatory system despite occlusal issues.
-We can see the following output responses, which we report directly in figures 1b, 1c and 1d (with explanation in the caption, to simplify the discussion). These tests and their description by now should only be considered as “Conceptual Rationale” for the “Malocclusion” question; later they will be widely described and their analysis detailed in the specific chapters. It can already be noted in this first descriptive approach to the masticatory phenomenon that there is an evident discrepancy between the occlusal state (which at first would support the orthodoxy of classical orthodontics in considering it as “Malocclusive State”) and the neurophysiological data indicating incredible synchronization and perfect symmetry of the trigeminal reflexes.<gallery mode="slideshow">
+<gallery mode="slideshow">
-File:Bilateral Electric Transcranial Stimulation.jpg|'''Figure 1b:''' Motor evoked potential from electrical transcranial stimulation of the trigeminal roots. Note the structural symmetry calculated by the peak-to-peak amplitude on the right and left masseters.
+File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|'''Figure 1a:''' Patient with malocclusion, open bite, and right posterior crossbite who should be treated with orthodontic therapy and/or orthognathic surgery.
-File:Jaw Jerk .jpg|'''Figure 1c:''' Mandibular reflex evoked by percussion of the chin through a triggered neurological hammer.
+File:Bilateral Electric Transcranial Stimulation.jpg|'''Figure 1b:''' Motor-evoked potential test showing symmetry in the right and left masseter muscles.
-File:Mechanic Silent Period.jpg|'''Figure 1d:''' Mechanical silent period evoked by percussion of the chin through a triggered neurological hammer. Note the functional symmetry calculated on the integral area of the right and left masseters.
+File:Jaw Jerk .jpg|'''Figura 1c:''' Jaw reflex test revealing functional symmetry in the masticatory system.
+File:Mechanic Silent Period.jpg|'''Figura 1d:''' Evoked mechanical silent period showing balanced neuromuscular dynamics despite malocclusion.
 </gallery>
-These results can be attributed to anything less than a "malocclusion": we are obviously in front of an error of the logic Language in medicine, in this case it is in fact more appropriate to talk about:
+These electrophysiological results challenge conventional interpretations of malocclusion, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary diagnostics that consider neuromuscular function as well as occlusal discrepancies.
-{{qnq|Occlusal dysmorphism and not Malocclusion (which, as we shall see a little further on, is quite another thing)|}}
-== Conclusion==
+<blockquote>''Occlusal Dismorphisms and Not Malocclusion ......which, as we will see shortly, is an entirely different matter.''</blockquote>
-Even before drawing conclusions, conceptual clarity must be made on some fundamental points which of course will be treated in detail in the specific chapters of Masticationpedia.
-The Masticatory System should be considered as a “'''Complex System'''”<ref>''[[wpen:Complex system|Complex system]]'' on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia]</ref>, not as a Biomechanical System focused exclusively on dental occlusion, because in this sense the “Occlusion” is nothing more than a subset of the Complex System interacting with the other subsets, such as periodontal receptors, neuromuscular spindles, recruitment of motor units, central nervous system, temporomandibular joint, etc., to give shape to an “Emerging Behaviour”, the masticatory one.
+==Conclusion==
+Before concluding, we must clarify that the masticatory system is a "Complex System"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system</ref>, not a simple biomechanical mechanism focused solely on dental occlusion. Occlusion is just one subset within a broader context that includes periodontal receptors, neuromuscular spindles, motor units, the central nervous system, and the temporomandibular joint. This interaction creates "Emergent Behavior{{Tooltip||The **masseter silent period** (MSP) is a relevant example of emergent behavior in masticatory neurophysiology. This reflex is triggered by sudden chin taps, leading to a brief cessation of electrical activity in the masseter muscle, and is closely related to the recruitment of motor units. During the MSP, there is a specific modulation of motor unit recruitment, regulated by the central nervous system, to respond to external stimuli. In the context of emergent behavior, this reflex is not limited to a single muscle but represents a coordinated response involving synergies among various neuronal centers and antagonist muscles. This integration stabilizes the mandible, adapting in real time to the force of the stimulus and producing an adaptive response. Mathematically, we can describe the probability <math>P(R)</math> of an emergent response as a function of the input variables <math>x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n</math> that influence motor unit activation: <math>P(R) = f(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)
+</math> where <math>f</math> represents the non-linear interaction among incoming stimuli (such as the type and intensity of the chin tap) and the central integration processes of the trigeminal system. This model helps to understand how the MSP reflects an integrated and adaptive response that emerges from complex neurophysiological circuits rather than a single neural pathway.}}," or masticatory behavior.
-The peculiarity of this concept is that it is not possible to interpret or predict the “Emerging Behaviour” of a System by extracting objective data from a single subset. Instead, ''the integrity of the System must be quantified in its entirety'', and only then can a segmentation of the whole be attempted to make an analytical description of the node itself. There are very important intellectual and scientific movements that are engaging with this issue; in this regard, the extraordinary work of Prof. Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh: ''Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine'' comes to mind.<ref>{{cita libro
+Emergent behavior cannot be fully explained by analyzing a single subset; instead, the integrity of the entire system must be assessed. A notable intellectual movement addressing this challenge is Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh’s work, "Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine."<ref>{{cita libro
   | autore = Sadegh-Zadeh Kazem
   | titolo = Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine
@@ Line 505: / Line 397: @@
   }}.</ref>
-In the presented case, the question is resolved in the following language logic:
+The masticatory system's various subsets, such as teeth, occlusion, joints, and muscles, exhibit "Coherence" with the Central Trigeminal Nervous System, as shown in the electrophysiological tests. Therefore, "malocclusion" may not be the appropriate term; "Occlusal Dysmorphisms" would be more accurate.
+{{q2|Viewing the masticatory system as a "Complex System" doesn’t deny existing rehabilitative therapies like prosthetics or orthodontics but instead aims to enrich them by considering a broader interdisciplinary perspective.}}
+This approach, exemplified in OrthoNeuroGnathodontic treatments, integrates aesthetic and neurophysiological aspects to achieve "Occlusal Stability" and prevent "Relapses."<ref>Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi, Larry M Wolford. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27371873/ Is Counterclockwise Rotation of the Maxillomandibular Complex Stable Compared With Clockwise Rotation in the Correction of Dentofacial Deformities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.. 2016 Oct;74(10):2066.e1-2066.e12.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jun 11.
+</ref><ref>J Hoffmannová, R Foltán, M Vlk, K Klíma, G Pavlíková, O Bulik. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19537679/ Factors affecting the stability of bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of a mandible].Prague Med Rep. 2008;109(4):286-97.
+</ref> While not replacing traditional treatments, this model seeks to expand medical knowledge and interdisciplinary practices in dentistry.
-:The subsets of the Masticatory System (teeth, occlusion, Temporomandibular joints, muscles, etc.) are in a state of "Coherence” with the Central Trigeminal Nervous System (see figures 1b, 1c and 1d), so the term “Malocclusion” cannot be used, the phrase “Occlusal  Dismorphism” should be considered instead.
+In the meantime, let us pause with a question from Linus Sapiens, our curious yellow figure on the left. He reminds us of the importance of remaining open to new perspectives in masticatory science.
-:{{q2|This does not mean abolishing prosthetic, orthodontic and orthognathic masticatory rehabilitation treatments: on the contrary, this forma mentis tends to restore medical knowledge to dental rehabilitation disciplines, as well as offering an alternative to the scientific reductionism that converges in a deterministic interpretation of the biological phenomenon.|}}
 [[File:Question_2.jpg|left|150px]]
 {{qnq|What do we mean by “Complex Systems” when we are talking about masticatory functions?}}
 {{Bib}}
 {{apm}}[[Category:Introduction]]
-<onlyinclude> </onlyinclude>
+<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>