-
Case 2
I felt this case was nicely treated. But I was trying to dissect in when I was asked to critique final outcome. On a previous case in a different module, I commented on the positive aspects of the case and all the answers were negative. Therefore, I took that to mean that we are looking for areas to improve.
On the second to last prompt it asks to critique facial outcomes. The answers included improvement of lips relative to e-line, and 2 others I can’t remember, but they were all positive.
I had answered that lips were still protrusive to e-line, chin projection could improve (maybe genioplasty since advancement is pretty well maxed), and facial profile remains convex. I don’t know that the case really could have turned out much better, but from a purely ideal norms standpoint, not taking into account the individual factors in a case, these items I came up with.
I guess my real question is whether I should include positives in areas where it asks for critique? I do feel that a comprehensive critique of the outcome would include both positive and negative items.
-
1 Reply
-
Michael, I completely agree with you. Some cases we tend to critique a bit more negatively and others more positively but a true critique is a balance of all [So even in prepping our cases for this course we are a bit biased]
My rule of thumb for critique is use the CRE, use skeletal / facial norms, and then I try to “find” a dozen items to comment on. It seems from the board sample cases that there are 5-7 “responses” they are seeking. I feel that if I make a dozen comments I have my bases covered – if I spend time going on and on to get 15-20 then I’m probably wasting exam time.
Keep it up! Good question and excellent discussion.
The forum ‘Synapse Orthodontics: Module 4’ is closed to new discussions and replies.