George R Moore

Naming dental and oral anomalies

D ENTAL terminology is, this year, in its perennial state of disorder. Fully aware of this fact, our practical-minded chairman, in planning this meeting, decided to include the solemn subject of nomenclature, on condition that it could he t,reated in a practical manner consistent with the remainder of this program. Hc was able to cstract from mc, in an unguarded moment, a promise to write a paper on t,he subject; and with the t.hought that I would receive unlimited assistance from the other members of the nomenclature committee, I proceeded with the assignment. I had not gone far before I discovered that nomenclature committee members are somewhat soured on the world. Nomenclature committees usually include men who have served a sufficient number of years to become justly impressed with the futility of trying to do something about the terminology of t,heir specialty. Fortunately, I learned t,his earIS enough SO that I could at least begin to understand why it is true. As I said, the attitude which they assume is justifiable. Now why is it so? 111 the first place, our committees on nomcnclaturc have always tried to worry along singlchandedly, for t,hc most part.. True, some of the broader minds of J-ears least have made an honest cndcavor to render our terminology consistent with that of @llPrill dent istq-, 110pcfd 0C avoidin, (7 irrcconcilahle diffcrenccs bctwecn c*onsidcrctl definitions of the same term when supplied by authorities from different, fields of dent,istry ; but most efforts of this kind have failed. It has been repeatedly suggested that our terminology be made consistent with that of medicine and other sciences. At the same time we are confronted wil h statements such as this one found in a report of the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Dent,al Association in 1925: “The committee is aware that some of its recommendations seem arbitrary and in conflict with medical nomenclature but we also are aware of the fact that our object and purpose are prima&to make dental terms understandable to dentists.” As long as Ihis view continues to occupy the minds of nomenclature commit,& members of the various specialtics of dent,istq-, we shall continue to stifle growth and development of the profession along medical and scientific lines. Such an attitude is responsible for the recommendation that the words ‘ ‘ bicuspid ’ ’ and “cuspid” be used when speaking to dentists in order that they ma.y nnderst,and; although “premolar” and “canine” must be used in papers prepared l’or other scientific bodies. True, these terms might be defended on the basis of custom a,nd long nsc. lJsa,ge is generally the best determinant of values, especially among educated people, unless there be sonic well-founded or scientific reason for a change. Ilast