There are varying degrees of 'scientific' validity to publications, like randomized
clinical trial, versus case series, and 'observational studies'. Even in the best of the
best conducted by medical research giants, you can get numbers to show only what
you want. There is a saying: 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
While there are many good reasons to do somethings, there are also lots of
'gurus's who can present very convincing lectures to support one theory
or another, the human body presents with such myriad variety of
confounding variables it is practically impossible to run a tight experiment
for anyone to say one type of occlusion can cause one problem or solve
another problem. There are Cochran reviews that found some factors,
but even those would, the last time I check, not call it anything more
than an 'association'.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Bob, I think Lingualized is a good concept and when executed well,
can be great simplifier in real life clinical practice.
!
LCM