A Review of Wolff's “Law of the Transformation of Bone” Exnest M. Serzer, D.DS. Oakland, California Julius Wolif, in 1870, showed that pathologically changed bones, when restored to natural functions, assumed the internal architecture of normally shaped bones and experienced secondary changes whereby they took. on the forms of normally shaped bones, Later, he carried on additional ex- periments and showed that it was possible not only to produce abnormal bone formations through arbitrarily bringing about disturbances of the normal static structure of the bones, but also that the shape of the bones thus deformed could be brought back to normal through the recovery of the normal static structure. Wolff states in his book, The Law of Transformation of Bone, “In my first work on bone transformation I had principally in mind only change of the inner architecture of bones due to pathological changes in the outer bone form, and I had pointed out, accordingly, in the former work, only the law which these changes in the architecture follow, as “The Law of Bone Transformation.”. “My later investigations brought me back to comprehend the idea of the Jaw of transformation in a much broader sense than I had formerly done.” “There should be included not alone the architectural changes entering into the primary bone disturbances, but there also should be included those things that enter into the secondary change of form of this same bone disturbance. These changes of form and architecture must be added to the conception of the law of transformation.” Experiments on the legs of animals showed that merely by a change in the static condition of the legs, modifications of both form and architec- ture were brought about,—that is, there was primarily a change in the inner architecture and secondarily a change in the outer form. He further states, “The comprehension of the law of the transformation 66 THE ANGLE ORTHODONTISTof bones is only possible when one has a knowledge of bones and especially a fundamental knowledge of the architecture, the importance of which was revealed by the Zurich mathematician, Culmann. We must, therefore, next bring up for discussion the normal bone architecture of the specimens concerned. Figure 1 Cross section of the head of a femur showing the arrangement of bone along definite lines of design. The schematic drawing shows more clearly the manner in which the bone is constructed to take up strains and resist stresses. (Wolff) “I wish to describe accurately, in the following section, a sketch of the discovery of the inner architecture of bones; above all, the architecture of extremities of human femurs is the most suitable place in the body for the purpose of our explanation.” ‘Wolff believed that the femur functioned like a crane and made many photographs of sections of the head of the femur to show the analogy. These also show the plan adopted in bone formation to give the greatest strength with the least amount of material. There are half-round arches, Gothic arches, pillars, elliptical arches, beams,—almost every mechanical means for resisting stresses and supporting weights. When we consider THE ANGLE ORTHODONTIST 67in detail the structure of bone and note how it is formed apparently along definite lines of design, we can almost feel as John Hunter did when, in 1767, he “attributed a form of consciousness to living bone.” Wolfi’s work, in attempting to show the connection between certain mathematical principles and the manner in which the cross-beams and net- work of bone was arranged, is very complete. Figure 2 Cases of club feet treated only with appliances to restore normal function and eventually normal form, ‘These results were obtained after 10 months treatment. John C, Koch, in an article entitled, “The Laws of Bone Architecture”, upholds the doctrine of both Culmann, the mathematician, and Wolff, and further develops the mechanical theory suggested by Wolff. Koch demonstrated the following laws for bone structure: 1. The inner structure and external form of human bones are closely adapted to the mechanical conditions existing at every point in the bone. 68 THE ANGLE ORTHODONTIST2, The inner architecture of normal bone is determined by the definite and exact requirements of mathematical and mechanical laws to produce a maximum of strength with a minimum of materia ‘The observations noted and the facts gathered about the femur must, in a general way, hold true for all the bones of the body, or else we must believe that the femur behaves in a different manner from the other bones, when certain mechanical laws are considered, Wolff himself states, “The principal discovery was that the governing laws were the same in all bones as for one.” ‘Therefore, the same facts must be true for the mandible and the maxilla that are true for the bones on which the experiments were made. Koch further states that, “The close adaptation of the structure of normal bone to its function leads logically to the conclusion that continued deviation from the normal static conditions to which a bone is subjected must be followed by a structural adaptation to meet the changed conditions or altered functions.” Since all bones react in like manner to the same mechanical laws, we may draw the conclusion from Wolff's experiments on other bones that the external forms of the mandible and maxilla are likewise adapted to their functions. And from this it must follow that we may regard abnor- malities of bone form as “physiological adaptations of the structure to pathological mechanical conditions and, therefore, to pathological function.” This all seems to be proof, founded on basic principles, that each tooth should be carried to its correct place in relation to the rest of the skull and to every other tooth, When this is done it makes possible the normal functioning of the jaws, thereby carrying to the underlying bone tissue stimulation for added bone growth and development. A paragraph in Koch's work, “The Law of Bone Architecture”, may well be applied in orthodontia: “Just as the principle of bone formation explains the production of deformity, so may it be used to explain the cure of deformity, and, if proper mechanical means are used to produce new mechanical conditions, we shall be able to overcorrect the deformity and reverse the transformation process.” THE ANGLE ORTHODONTIST 69