Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system Abstract

Versione del 30 dic 2025 alle 13:50 di Gianni (discussione | contributi) (Creata pagina con "{{AbstractOpenAccess | title = Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system | authors = {{ArtBy| | autore = Gianni Frisardi | autore2 = Alice Bisirri | autore3 = Flavio Frisardi | }} | abstract = The concept of ''malocclusion'' is one of the most influential “axioms” in dental rehabilitation, yet its epistemological foundations remain fragile when it is treated as a purely macroscopic object. Orthodontics has histori...")
(diff) ← Versione meno recente | Versione attuale (diff) | Versione più recente → (diff)

Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system

Masticationpedia
Masticationpedia

Abstract
The concept of malocclusion is one of the most influential “axioms” in dental rehabilitation, yet its epistemological foundations remain fragile when it is treated as a purely macroscopic object. Orthodontics has historically relied on visible morphology—static intermaxillary relationships, occlusal contacts, skeletal classes, and aesthetic harmony—to define what is “normal” and what is “pathological.” This chapter proposes a neurophysiological reinterpretation: malocclusion should be understood not only as a geometric configuration, but as a system state—a dynamic condition emerging from the interaction between occlusal structures, trigeminal sensory-motor control, central nervous system modulation, and adaptive biological time.

To make this shift explicit, we compare two emblematic clinical profiles. In one case, a patient presents a clearly observable malocclusion (open bite with posterior crossbite), which would conventionally justify a diagnosis of “dysfunction” and a corrective plan. In a second case, a patient treated by orthognathic surgery displays an apparently ideal “normocclusion,” with formal occlusal congruence and high subjective satisfaction. However, when both patients are investigated with advanced neurophysiological methods—particularly trigeminal evoked electrophysiology and motor output testing—the diagnostic hierarchy can invert: the patient with the aesthetically “better” occlusion may exhibit severe trigeminal asymmetries, altered reflex organization, and a system profile compatible with deeper neurological dysfunction, while the patient with “worse” occlusion may show a more balanced functional state. The core implication is that macroscopic appearance can be a misleading proxy for the true underlying organization of the masticatory system.

To conceptualize this diagnostic paradox, the chapter adopts a quantum-like metaphor: the masticatory system, as a complex biological network, can exist in a mixed or superposed state with respect to health and disease, especially when clinical signs are non-pathognomonic. Schrödinger’s cat becomes a didactic image for the clinician’s dilemma: before an appropriate measurement is performed, the system cannot be safely reduced to a binary classification (normocclusion vs malocclusion). In this framework, the “collapse” is not philosophical but operational: it occurs when a clinically meaningful measurement—capable of probing hidden variables—forces a diagnostic update. In practice, this means that classical observation alone is insufficient; it must be coupled with instruments that interrogate the system’s internal state through reproducible inputs and measurable outputs (e.g., Root-MEPs, trigeminal reflex metrics, latency/amplitude asymmetries, and other neurophysiological signatures).

Ultimately, this chapter argues for a revision of the notion of normocclusion: an occlusion may be morphologically “correct” while functionally unstable, and conversely morphologically “imperfect” while physiologically coherent. The proposed approach is interdisciplinary, integrating dentistry with neurophysiology and systems thinking, and aims to reduce diagnostic uncertainty by replacing rigid statistical labeling with a model that respects complexity, temporal evolution, and the difference between what is visible and what is true.

Figure: The structure of the experimental apparatus. Apparently, the cat can be both alive and dead at the same time
Figure: The structure of the experimental apparatus. Apparently, the cat can be both alive and dead at the same time

🧠 Three guiding questions (with essential answers)

1️⃣ Why is the traditional orthodontic definition of malocclusion epistemologically insufficient? — Because it relies on static, macroscopic, and geometric observations that fail to describe the true functional state of the masticatory system, which emerges from dynamic interactions between occlusion, trigeminal control, central nervous system modulation, and biological adaptation over time.

2️⃣ How can neurophysiological analysis overturn a clinical judgment based on occlusal appearance? — Because patients with morphologically “ideal” normocclusion may exhibit severe trigeminal and system-level dysfunctions, while individuals with evident malocclusions may show a more balanced functional state, demonstrating that occlusal appearance is not a reliable indicator of system health.

3️⃣ What diagnostic model is proposed to overcome the classical concept of normocclusion? — A systemic and neurophysiological model inspired by a quantum-like logic, which considers the masticatory system as a complex and potentially mixed state, assessable only through advanced functional measurements capable of revealing hidden variables and reducing diagnostic uncertainty.

🔒 Access to the full chapter
👤 Approved users
If you already have an approved account, click on your profile icon and return to the Book Index to read the complete chapter.
🔑 New readers
To access the full content, you must sign in via LinkedIn and request approval.

Bibliography & references

  • Packer M, «The Parable of Schrödinger's Cat and the Illusion of Statistical Significance in Clinical Trials», in Circulation, 2019». 
  • Rochitte CE, «Cardiac MRI and CT explained by the Schrödinger's cat paradox», in Radiologia Brasileira, 2016». 
  • Wikipedia contributors, «Schrödinger's cat paradox», in Wikipedia, 2023». 
  • Schrödinger E, «Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik», in Naturwissenschaften, 1935». 
  • Wikipedia contributors, «Bra–ket notation», in Wikipedia, 2023». 
  • Scully MO, «State reduction in quantum mechanics: a calculational example», in Physics Reports, 1978». 
  • Haroche S, «Entanglement, decoherence and the quantum/classical boundary», in Physics Today, 1998». 
  • Chen BQ, Zheng BX, Wang CQ, Sun WF, «Adaptive Sparse Detector for Suppressing Powerline Component in EEG Measurements», in Frontiers in Public Health, 2021». 
  • Popiel NJM, Metrow C, Laforge G, Owen AM, Stojanoski B, Soddu A, «Exploring electroencephalography with a model inspired by quantum mechanics», in Scientific Reports, 2021».