Morphospatial analysis of soft-tissue profile in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated using twin block appliances: Geometric morphometrics

Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 38-50

  Singh, G D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Puerto Rico)

Author keywords

Dentofacial orthopedics; Geometric morphometrics; Thin plate spline

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FACE; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LIP; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PHOTOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIP; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES, FUNCTIONAL; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE; PHOTOGRAMMETRY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 0036463993     PISSN: 16016335     EISSN: 16016343     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2002.01121.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Mew J. Bioblock therapy. Am J Orthod 1979;76:29-50.
2. Coben ES. Growth and Class II treatment. Am J Orthod 1966;52: 5-26.
3. Proffit WR. On the aetiology of malocclusion. Br J Orthod 1986;13:1-11.
4. Subtelny JD. Longitudinal study of soft tissue facial structures. Am J Orthod 1959;45:494-517.
5. Tulley WJ. Long term studies of malocclusion. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1961;256-65.
6. Posen JMA. A longitudinal study of the nose. Am J Orthod 1967;55:746-56.
7. Brenchly ML. Are the soft tissues of significance? Br J Orthod 1980;7:3-13.
8. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Finite element morphometry of soft tissues of prepubertal Korean and European-Americans with Class III malocclusions. Arch Oral Biol 1999;44:429-36.
9. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Finite-element morphometry of soft tissue morphology in subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1999;69:215-24.
10. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Components of soft tissue deformations in subjects with untreated Angle's Class III malocclusions: thin-plate spline analysis. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1998;18:219-27.
11. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Soft tissue thin-plate spline analysis of pre-pubertal Korean and European-Americans with untreated Angle's Class III malocclusions. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1999;19:94-101.
12. Clark WJ. Treatment of deep overbite. Br J Orthod 1975;3:231-7.
13. Clark WJ. The twin block technique. Func Orthod 1991;8:24-8.
14. Chadwick SM, Banks P, Wright JL. The use of myofunctional appliances in the UK: a survey of British orthodontists. Dent Update 1998;25:302-8.
15. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:15-24.
16. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:24-33.
17. Clark WJ. Twin Block Functional Therapy. Applications in Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1st edn. London: Mosby-Wolfe, 1995.
18. McNamara JA. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations for altered function in the orofacial region. Am J Orthod 1973;64:578-606.
19. Singh GD, Clark WJ. Localization of mandibular changes in patients with Class II division I malocclusions treated using twin block appliances: finite-element modeling. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:419-25.
20. Yamin-Lacouture C, Woodside DG, Sektakof PA, Sessle BJ. The action of three types of functional appliance on the activity of masticatory muscles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:560-72.
21. O'Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:371-6.
22. Chintakanon K, TuÈrker KS, Sampson W, Wilkinson T, Townsend G. Effects of twin-block therapy on protrusive muscle functions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:392-6.
23. Thompson DW. On the theory of transformations or the comparison of related forms. In: Bonner JT, editor. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1917 (1961, reprinted 1988).
24. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 1990;39:40-59.
25. Lele S, Cole TM. A new test for shape differences when variancecovariance matrices are unequal. J Hum Evol 1996;31:193-212.
26. Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a co-ordinate free approach for comparing biological shape. Am J Phys Anthrop 1991;86:415-27.
27. Hay AD, Ayoub AF, Moos KF, Singh GD. Euclidean distance matrix analysis of surgical changes in prepubertal craniofacial microsomia patients treated with an inverted L osteotomy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000;37:497-502.
28. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Procrustes, Euclidean and cephalometric analyses of the morphology of the mandible in human Class III malocclusions. Arch Oral Biol 1998;43:535-43.
29. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Morphometry of the midfacial complex in subjects with Class III malocclusions: Procrustes, Euclidean and cephalometric analyses. Clin Anat 1998;11:162-70.
30. Moorrees CF, Efstratiadis SS, Kent RL Jr. The mesh diagram for analysis of facial growth. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1991;87:33-41.
31. Rohlf FJ. Appendix II. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE, editors. Advances in Morphometrics. NATO ASI Series A. London: Plenum Press; 1996. pp. 553-60.
32. Bookstein FL. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Geometry and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
33. Marcus LF, Corti M. Overview of the new, or geometric morphometrics. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE, editors. Advances in Morphometrics. NATO ASI Series A. London: Plenum Press; 1996, pp. 1-13.
34. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1979;75:599-617.
35. Bookstein FL. On the cephalometrics of skeletal change. Am J Orthod;1982:177-98.
36. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL, Guire KE. The concept of pattern in craniofacial growth. Am J Orthod 1979;76:136-48.
37. Kendall DG, Barden D, Carne TK, Le H. Shape and Shape Theory. New York: Wiley, 1999.
38. Macey-Dare LV, Nixon F. Functional appliances. mode of action and clinical use. SADJ 1999;54:474-9.
39. Stockli PW, Willert HG. Tissue reactions in the temporomandibular joint resulting from anterior displacement of the mandible in the monkey. Am J Orthod 1971;60:142-55.
40. Clark WJ. The twin block traction technique. Eur J Orthod 1982;4:129-38.
41. Counihan D. Arch development and facial asthetics. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:13-23.
42. Genecov JS, Sinclair PM, Dechow PC. Development of the nose and soft tissue profile. Angle Orthod 1990;60:191-8.
43. Foley TF, Duncan PG. Soft tissue profile changes in late adolescent males. Angle Orthod 1997;67:373-80.
44. Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:674-84.
45. Gesch D. A longitudinal study on growth in untreated children with Angle Class II, Division I malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:20-33.
46. Clark WJ. The twin block technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:1-18.
47. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118: 24-33.
48. Trenouth MJ. A comparison of twin block, Andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II Division I malocclusion. Funct Orthod 1992;9:26-31.
49. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113: 104-1.
50. Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II division I malocclusion with matched normative data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:54-9.
51. Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment effects produced by the Twin Block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:597-609.
52. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Puletto S, Bignotto M, Tartaglia G. Comparison of soft tissue facial morphometry in children with Class I and Class II occlusions. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1994;9:187-94.