Is there such a thing as a 'healthy occlusion'?: lessons from history.

Abstract

Opinions on occlusion and its link to oral health could not be more diverse. These opinions are used as justification for an equally diverse range of treatments for so-called occlusally related problems, from heavy wear to chronic orofacial pain. Many claim to have evidence to back up their opinions, although much of it appears to be from a very weak source or based on clinical experience. The strongest case appears to be made by those who believe there is no link, by virtue of a lack of evidence to support its existence. Yet for many clinicians, it is a self-evident truth that occlusion must be related in some way to the function and dysfunction of the stomatognathic system. This article uses historical research to highlight where the pro-occlusionists may be going wrong. It also offers a new concept, based on anthropological studies, that indicates occlusion's link to oral health, and explains why most patients appear to have no occlusal problems for most of the time. This theory needs to be tested by researchers to establish its validity. In the meantime, dentists who feel the need to treat occlusal problems will find it supports a very conservative approach to care.