Clinical opinion should be guided by rigorous scientifically-designed Tx protocols. However Orthotropics is based on posture and you cannot measure posture, so few if any Universities are interested in it. I worked in reverse based primarily on Bjork’s implant studies which factually showed that the maxilla could grow either horizontally or vertically. A 90 degree variation is completely out side any genetic explanation.
Although you cannot measure posture, you can measure the effects of posture. Accordingly I carried out a series of prospective studies comparing patients treated by either Orthodontists or Orthotropists. There can be no cheating in a prospective study which may be why there are few of them. I did four, the first on the direction of growth of Gnathion, the second on the difference in dental alignment and facial appearance in Identical twins, the third comparing dental and facial aesthetics between “excellently” treated cases by either method and the fourth a review of impacted canines. In the first three studies the orthodontists selected their own cases.
The first was geometric, the aesthetics in the second and third were judged respectively by ten and eighteen university postgrads, the fourth was a factual review. By internationally accepted statistics all these studies showed that the Orthotropic results were Highly Significantly superior. Not one of the major orthodontic journals would publish any of them. Don’t you think we should talk about this and need for forward growth.