Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: A prospective study

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 533-539

  Caldwell, Susi ^a   Cook, Paul ^b  

^a WITHINGTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b LEEDS DENTAL INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FORECASTING; HUMAN; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ALGORITHMS; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES, FUNCTIONAL; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES, REMOVABLE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0033210033     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/21.5.533     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ahlgren J 1972 A longitudinal clinical and cephalometric study of 50 malocclusion cases treated with activator appliances. Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society, pp. 285-293
2. Ahlgren J, Laurin C 1976 Late results of activator treatment: a cephalometric study. British Journal of Orthodontics 3: 181-187
3. Battagel J M 1993 A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. European Journal of Orthodontics 15: 305-314
4. Bishara S E, Ziaja R R 1989 Functional appliances: a review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 95: 250-258
5. Bondevik O 1991 How effective is the combined activator-headgear treatment? European Journal of Orthodontics 13: 482-485
6. British Standards Institute 1983 Glossary of dental terms (BS4492). British Standards Institute, London
7. Charron C 1989 Recherche d'elements pronostiques quant a l'effecacite de l'Activateur en occlusion de classe II d'Angle. Orthodontie Française 60: 685-693
8. Clark W J 1982 The twin block traction technique. European Journal of Orthodontics 4: 129-138
9. Clark W J 1988 The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 93: 1-18
10. Clark W J 1995 Twin block functional therapy. Applications in dentofacial orthopedics. Mosby-Wolfe, St Louis
11. Cohen A M 1981 A study of Class II division 1 malocclusions treated by the Andresen appliance. British Journal of Orthodontics 8: 159-163
12. Dickson G C 1964 A survey of 100 cases treated with the Andresen appliance. Transactions of the British Society for the Study of Orthodontics, pp. 93-96
13. Gravely J F, Benzies P M 1974 The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. British Journal of Orthodontics 1: 95-101
14. Harvold E P 1976 The activator in interceptive orthodontics C V Mosby Co., St Louis
15. Korkhaus G 1960 Present orthodontic thought in Germany. American Journal of Orthodontics 46: 270-287
16. Pancherz H 1979 The mandibular plane angle in activator treatment. Angle Orthodontist 49: 11-20
17. Parkhouse R C 1969 A cephalometric appraisal of cases of Angle's Class II, division 1 malocclusion treated by the Andresen appliance. Transactions of the British Society for the Study of Orthodontics, pp. 61-70
18. Proffit W R 1993 Contemporary orthodontics, 2nd edn. C V Mosby Co., St Louis
19. Trenouth M J 1989 A functional appliance system for the correction of Class II relationships. British Journal of Orthodontics 6: 169-176
20. Witzig J 1990 Twin block - eight advantages of this amazing new functional appliance. Functional Orthodontist 7: 4-8