Introduction

Home

Scientific project

Social project

Our story

Scientific community

Book index

Our network

Frisardi Masticationpedia Network

Fontana Masticationpedia Network

Ed. Lab

Donate

Contact

Change language

[[|German]]

[[|Spanish]]

[[|French]]

[[|Italian]]

Introduction

Abstract

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.

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.

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.

---

 

Article by  Gianni Frisardi

 

Ab ovo

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.

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", 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". 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. 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".

In analyzing the progress of science, Thomas Kuhn, in his most famous work, argues that science develops through distinct cycles, reflecting its operational dynamics. 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.

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.

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.

The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn

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:

	Phase 2, or the Normal Science 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.
	Phase 4, or the Crisis of the Paradigm 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.
	Phase 5, or the Scientific Revolution 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.

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.

---

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 the swans are white? Really?
	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? Sure?

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. 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.

It is important to emphasize that the central problem of epistemology, today as in the times of Hume, is the issue of verifiability.

The Hempel's paradox asserts that the observation of every white swan provides support to the statement that all ravens are black; in other words, every example that does not contradict the theory confirms a part of it. According to this paradox:

$A\Rightarrow B=\lnot A\lor B$

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.

But it’s not all so obvious...

...because the very concept of epistemology meets continuous implementations, like in medicine:

$P-value$: In medicine, for example, to confirm an experiment, a series of data coming from laboratory instruments or from surveys, the "Statistical Inference" is used, and in particular a famous value called "" 'significance test' '" or $P-value$. Well, even this concept, now part of the researcher's genesis, is wavering. In a recent study, attention was focused on a "Campaign" conducted on "Nature" against the concept of "significance tests". With over 800 signatories supporting important scientists, this "campaign" can be considered an important milestone and a "Silent Revolution" in statistics on logical and epistemological aspects. The campaign criticizes the too simplified statistical analyses that can still be found in many publications to date. This eventually led to a discussion, sponsored by the American Statistical Association, which spawned 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 forward-looking statisticians. The special question proposes both new ways to signal the importance of research results beyond the arbitrary threshold of a $P-value$, and some guides to conduct of research: the researcher should accept uncertainty, be reflective, open and modest in his/ her statements. Future will show whether or not those attempts to statistically better support science beyond the significance tests will be reflected in future publications. In this field too, we are on the same wavelength as the Progress of Science according to Kuhn, in that we are talking about the re-modulation of some descriptive statistical contents within the scope of disciplinarity.

Interdisciplinarity: In science policy, it is generally recognized that science-based problem solving requires interdisciplinary research (IDR), as proposed by the EU project called Horizon 2020. In a recent study, the authors focus on the question why researchers have cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. It is believed that the loss of philosophical interest in the epistemology of interdisciplinary research is due to a philosophical paradigm of science called "Physics Paradigm of Science", which prevents recognition of important IDR changes in both the philosophy of science and research. The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm, called "Engineering Paradigm of Science", makes alternative philosophical assumptions about aspects such as the purpose of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge and the role of technological tools. Consequently, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist them in the analysis and reconstruction of how "knowledge" is constructed in different disciplines. In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds help interdisciplinary communication analyse and articulate how the discipline builds knowledge

Anomaly vs. Interdisciplinarity

Given the above, on a superficial view of the epistemic evolution of the Science, the two aspects of disciplinarity ("Physics Paradigm of Science", highlighting the anomaly) and Interdisciplinary ("Engineering Paradigm of Science", metacognitive scaffold), might seem to be in conflict with each other; in reality, however, as we are just going to see right in this chapter, they are two sides of the same coin because both tend to generate "Paradigmatic Innovation" without any conflict at all.

Now we could conclude that the "Innovations" are already "Progress of Science" in themselves, as stated in the article "Scientific basis of dentistry" by Yegane Guven in which the effect of biological and digital revolutions is considered on dental education and daily clinical practice, such as personalized regenerative dentistry, nanotechnologies, virtual reality simulations, genomic information and stem cell studies. The innovations mentioned by Guven are obviously to be considered as technological and methodological in nature; however, the Progress of Science does not move forward with this kind of Innovations, which are called "Incremental Innovations" and "Radical Innovations", but it occurs substantially through "Paradigmatic Innovations".

In the strictest sense of the phrase, "Paradigmatic Innovations" are essentially a change of thought and awareness that pervades the whole of humanity, starting from different social strata, from the Copernican scientific revolution to the current trend of Stochastic approach to the biological phenomenon.

In this epistemological context (in addition to other initiatives such as the Research Diagnostic Criteria in the field of the Temporomandibular Disorders — RDC/TMDs), of the Evidence Based Medicine (and other), the Masticationpedia project inserts itself in order to highlight the dialectics dynamism about the progress of the masticatory rehabilitation science. Masticationpedia tends, moreover, to highlight the anomalies that inevitably stimulate a change of thought and therefore a "Paradigmatic Innovation".

Before proceeeding, it could be appropriate to observe a very concrete and significant case.

Malocclusion

Malocclusion: it literally means a bad (malum, in Latin) closure of the dentition. The closure is easy to understand, we believe, but the epithet "bad" must be understood with care as well, because it is not as simple as it seems.

To briefly grasp the concept, in this first introductory reading we will try to present a simple but highly debatable question that involves a series of other questions in the field of masticatory rehabilitation and especially in orthodontic disciplines: what is "Malocclusion"? Bear in mind that in 2019, a Pubmed query about this term returned a result of "only" 33,309 articles, which says it all about the hypothetical terminological agreement on the subject; and, therefore, very meaningful conclusions could be drawn every now and then from these articles, such as the ones we reproduce in full from an article by Smaglyuk and collaborators, a somewhat "sensational" article that deals with the interdisciplinary approach in the diagnosis of malocclusions:

«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»

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.

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”.

Let’s try to approach part of the concept that considers the "Paradigmatic Innovation” as essential, asking ourselves for example:

Figure 1a:
Patient with malocclusion, open bite and right posterior crossbite who in rehabilitation terms should be treated with orthodontic therapy and/or orthognathic surgery.

What does "Malocclusion" mean?

We will answer this question by reporting a clinical case of evident “Malocclusion”.

Patient is with an occlusion that orthodontists call “Malocclusion” because it has a posterior unilateral crossbite and anterior openbite; it is a malocclusion that can be treated with a fixed orthodontic therapy and possibly in combination with an orthognathic intervention. Crossbite is another element of disturbance in normal occlusion because of which it is obligatorily treated together with the openbite. 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.»
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.»
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: 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..

A stochastic observer may observe that there is a low probability that the patient, at the moment $T_{n}$, 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.

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.

• 

  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.

• 

  Figure 1c: Mandibular reflex evoked by percussion of the chin through a triggered neurological hammer.

• 

  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.

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:

Occlusal dysmorphism and not Malocclusion (which, as we shall see a little further on, is quite another thing)

Conclusion

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”, 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.

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.

In the presented case, the question is resolved in the following language logic:

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.

«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.»

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

Bibliography & references

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
 

Home

Introduction

Latest chapter

Ed. Lab

Donate

Contacts