A Case of Dysfunction Following Dental Intervention

Robert Boyd, DO                                                                                            

Abstract:

A female patient presented with multiple symptoms, all left-sided to the median line of the body, & which failed, or partially failed to respond to Bio Cranial treatment,  until corrective dental mediation was undertaken, followed by Bio Cranial application.

 

History

At the time of resolution the patient was 77 years old.  Her early history was relatively uneventful & included an appendectomy when 8 years old.  She was married & at ages 26 & 29 had had two children by normal & uncomplicated delivery.  Her family history listed a father who died age 67 from cardiac failure resulting from “early & poorly treated rheumatic fever”, & a mother who enjoyed generally good health until her death age 98 years.

 

The patient first presented 16 years ago, at which time she complained primarily of intermittent low back pain accompanied by occasional pain reference to the left lower leg & knee.  She also indicated what appeared to be the beginnings of arthritic nodules on both hands & had developed a left sided adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder syndrome).

 

Discussion

Bio Cranial treatment commenced without delay & on an infrequent basis, mostly monthly at the outset & for some 8 months duration.  During this time improvements took place to the extent that treatment frequencies were reduced for a further 6 months approximately.  Although she had not become symptom free she was satisfied with progress & discharged herself.  After some 7 months she presented again & complained of a worsening of symptoms, including the onset of “new” ones.  These included intermittent “darting” pains in the left temporal area, intermittent left eye pain & irritation with conjunctivitis appearance, inability on most days to open the left eye on waking (the lid had to be lifted manually).  The patient’s report led to an in-depth review of the patient’s status to ascertain if any item had been omitted either in her history or examination.

 

This revealed that approximately 12 months before her first consultation 16 years previously, she had been subjected to some significant dental work.  Initially, there had been a root canal procedure carried out on the left mandible relative to tooth number 34 (FDI system).  This was followed by an extraction of tooth number 27, left maxilla, & a bridge fitted between numbers 25 & 28, (left maxilla).  The patient recalled suffering severe generalised pain in the area of the left face following the initial fitting of the  bridge.  The pain persisted, though in diminishing degree, for some weeks after.  There continued a “general discomfort” for a period of months before the patient eventually sought a second dental opinion.  The second dentist recommended removal of the bridge & the fitting of a replacement bridge: which was duly carried out again some 15 – 16 years ago.  There was instant improvement for the patient.

 

The eliciting of the additional information on dental history provided for further reflection for this author.  The patient was advised of the possibility that, in the author’s opinion, the dental work was in some way related to the onset of her symptoms, but that nevertheless, he was prepared to continue with the previous treatment protocol if it were her wish.  She assented to this &, over a period of some 9 months, Bio Cranial treatment was provided & gave relief between sessions. It became increasingly clear, however, that the treatment was, by some mechanism, being “resisted” from within the patient.  After a short period the author’s opinions & concerns were again explained to the patient.  It was suggested she seek another opinion which she declined.  It was then explained that the only options were to continue as before or - and was the considered preference - to have the bridge removed.  After consideration & declining to follow this preference, ongoing treatment proceeded as before over a period of some 14 years.  By this time the Bio Cranial treatment was having little more than a marginal effect & a further in-depth consultation took place.  From this the patient agreed to seek advice from her (regular) dentist, at which consultation the author was present & presented a synopsis of the concerns.  This interview resulted in a referral to another (third) dentist whose specialty was in the field of dental implants.  His recommendations resulted in a program which included removal of the existing dental bridge followed by the provision of implants.  This author was also present at the initial consultation with the  (now third) dentist & the patient agreed to follow the dentist’s suggested program, with which the author was in agreement.

 

The first stage of the dental program involved the cutting through the bridge between teeth 25 & 26, plus extraction of number 28.  The patient presented at the author’s office immediately after the initial procedures of extraction & bridge removal had been carried out. She received a Bio Cranial procedure.  The next morning she reported (i) she had slept through the night uninterrupted for the first time in many years, (ii) the shoulder pain had reduced dramatically, (iii) the left eyelid had opened on waking without assistance, (iv) the eye felt “wider”, (v) she felt much more relaxed, (vi) the low back & leg pains were gone.  To date all symptoms have remained clear except for the frozen shoulder syndrome.  This has improved by an estimated 75%, both in terms of pain reduction & range of motion.  The patient currently awaits the next stage of implants.

 

Interestingly, the patient’s original dental bridge did not directly cross any of the cranial sutures, thus providing an obvious potential limitation to osseous movement at the site of a suture &, therefore, to the articulatory processes about the suture.  We are left to consider other potential factors which must have resulted for this patient in what was a significant & dramatic effect on articulatory movement, particularly to the immediate structures of maxilla, palatine, ethmoid & sphenoid.

 

One possibility is that the first dental procedure per se, by virtue of the forces involved in installing the bridge, may have produced an impact directly to the maxilla &, from there, indirectly to associated structures such as the palatine.  From here it is easy to predicate the transmission of the stresses (lesions) indirectly to all of the left-sided cranial structures.  This author holds the view that, apart from major trauma, segmental cranial lesions do not exist in isolation & are part of a generalised lesion pattern involving all structures on that same side.

 

A second possibility is that the original tooth extraction process prior to the fitting of the bridge may have been causative.  Dr. Denis Brookes, DO, (1) states, “The dentist often leaves the maxilla in internal rotation after extraction, creating a noticeable difference on one side rather than the non-extraction side”.  It will be recalled that the patient did have an extraction before the original bridge was fitted.

 

A third possibility is that the rigidity of the bridge, with its total absence of intrinsic movement, will have resulted in a limitation to the normal movement of the maxilla, & beyond, by virtue of its associated articulations & sutures.  (It is understood that bridges are made from precious metal and/or porcelain).

 

It should be noted that the author did not carry out any intra oral examinations, mainly because he believes such diagnoses are highly subjective & opinionated.

 

Conclusion

The foregoing experience was sufficient to alert the author to the possibility of widespread & potentially serious health disorders attributable, in part or wholly, to dental mediation.  One is aware that few within the dental profession are aware of Sutherland’s Involuntary Mechanism (IVM), still less of its impact on the body’s life processes & health.  No fault is therefore being attributed to the dental profession or to any member of it.  In the case cited above there was a clear linkage between the patient’s dental experience & the onset of the ensuing symptom picture.  In particular, there had been an inability to address the patient’s disorders satisfactorily over a period of years.  That the follow up Bio Cranial treatment resulted in instant, & dramatic, change following the tooth extraction & removal of the bridge, suggested little doubt about the bridge/disorder connection.

 

The author makes no pretence to having any dental expertise & so at this time it is not possible to assert which of the three causative possibilities, or others, (if any or combined) was primary. The author’s conclusion, however, is that the actual fitting procedure of the bridge was the less likely precipitating event of the three.  The main reason for this, it is suggested, is that the procedure, though not necessarily comfortable, would be unlikely to employ enough force to cause such a lesion.

 

As against this, the patient did have an extraction before the bridge was fitted, leaving the possibility of the initial cause being due to what Dr. Brookes refers to as a localised internal rotation lesion of the maxilla.  In this case the extraction would have been the primary cause. But, as indicated above, a bridge was then immediately fitted &, for a period of many years, Bio Cranial treatment protocols failed to produce a satisfactory resolution.  It was only after removal of the bridge was effected - 16 years on - that the cranial dysfunction resolved immediately, following the application of the Bio Cranial procedure.

 

A tentative conclusion is that the probable origins to the patient’s dysfunction are to be found due to the presence of the bridge.  Although the tooth extraction episode may have resulted in the initial causation, the resolution of this lesion would have been expected to occur uneventfully from Bio Cranial applications.  It appears that the presence of the bridge, either as a fixation to the extraction-caused lesion or, as a causative presence in itself, was sufficient to provide a “locking” mechanism to the cranial structures.

 

It will be noted, perhaps surprisingly, that the patient’s bridge did not cross any of the cranial sutures.  The presence of the non-maleable bridge on an oblique antero-posterior plane, but clear of any sutural junction, therefore, suggests the possibility of movement of the maxilla on a number of planes & not only an axial plane about the sutures: effectively “bending”.  Smith (2) states, “… that Jaslow (3) noted a greater bending strength in segments of cranial bone having highly interdigitated sutures”.    More studies are recommended in the field of cranial movement.  Meantime, it is recommended that all patients’ dental histories, & the potential effects of previous dental mediation be taken into account by all practitioners in the cranial field.

 

 

References

Brookes Denis: Lectures on Cranial Osteopathy, Thorsons Publishers Limited,1981

Smith, Gerald H:  Cranio: The Journal of Craniomandibular Practice; January 2002, V20N1, pp 34.

3      Jaslow CR: Mechanical properties of cranial sutures.  J Biomechanics 1990; 4:313-321.

Case Studies

Readers Forum

List of patient's conditions and chief complaints:

 

55 year old male presenting with controlled hypertension, severe low back pain (25 years), feet and leg pain and numbness (10 years) and pain in the left groin.  History of concussion from a car wreck and gunshot wound to the stomach.  Also diagnosed with acid reflux (6 years), hypercholesterolemia, degenerative joint disease (10 years), osteoarthritis, previous heart attack and a stroke which forced patient into disability.

 

Was treated with pain medication, anti-inflammatories, heart, blood pressure and cholesterol medications and also an anti-depressant.  Previously had low back surgery which client states did not offer any relief from the pain and then numbness started in the arms, hands, legs and feet.  A month before presentation to my office client had 27 different tests, including a cat scan and MRI, which only yielded the same information that the client already knew.  Client stated that the medications were destroying his stomach and liver and now had 8 ruptured discs, along with the previous joint diseases and arthritis.

 

In two days this client was to have sinus surgery, which I was informed was cancelled until the results from a visit in my office were evaluated.

 

Abstract (Situation):

 

Client is in constant pain, only sleeps 3-4 hours at night and has to use sleep medication, has depression and low energy and unable to walk across his yard at home.

 

States he has had chiropractic care about every 3 months, receives temporary relief, but the pain always comes back.

 

Presentation:

 

Client was in so much pain that normal testing was almost impossible, such as leg raises and range of motion.  Client could only lay supine with assistance and had to have pillows under his knees for the pain to be tolerable.  Client had severe pain on coughing and sneezing at L-5,  no flexibility in his spine and could not rotate his neck more than 10 degrees right to left.  Both shoulders were immobilized due to the pain.

 

Initially the following testing points were present: KDY, SVG, LVR, SPL, STM, ADR, VSCLR, IVD, NSL, TRMA, LGI and IRB.

 

Treatment: 

 

After one Bio Cranial procedure, client stated that he no longer had numbness or was in pain.  Stated he walked pain free out of the office.

 

Initially to see client weekly for at least 4 weeks to administer Bio Cranial procedures.

 

Outcome:

 

After 3 months and 8 Bio Cranial procedures, client was able to eliminate all of his pain and depression medications, and remains on his blood pressure and heart medications.  Lab tests revealed normal cholesterol level and normal liver enzymes for the first time in years. Client states his elimination is better then in years and has been able to sleep at night without medications and the pain and numbness is gone.  Client did not reschedule his sinus surgery as he no longer felt it was necessary.  Able to mow his yard, ride in the car and do small jobs with absolutely no discomfort.

 

Conclusion/Follow-up:

 

After the initial 8 visits, to see client monthly for maintenance, but he did not return for a year and one month.  Client lives over 100 miles from the office and was unable to return sooner due to finances and the distance he had to travel.  He was still pain free at that time.

 

Submitted by Douglas L. Hays, DBCS

Case Study by Dr. Doug Hays