| CDS INSTITUTE |
| PROVIDING A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO WELLNESS |
Bio Cranial Case Studies
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.
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.
A Case of Dysfunction Following Dental Intervention
Robert Boyd, DO
Robert Boyd, DO
| next>> |
