Bimaxillary Morphometry of Patients with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treated with Twin Block Appliances

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 402-409

  Singh, G D ^a   Hodge, M R ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Euclidean distance matrix analysis; Geometric morphometrics; Thin plate spline

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INCISOR; JAW; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; METHODOLOGY; NASAL BONE; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; PATHOLOGY; PUBERTY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ALVEOLAR PROCESS; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INCISOR; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LINEAR MODELS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; NASAL BONE; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES; PUBERTY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS;

EID: 0036778355     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Clark WJ. The Twin Block traction technique. Eur J Orthod. 1982;4:129-138.
2. Clark WJ. The twin block traction technique: a functional orthopaedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 93:1-18.
3. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part 1 - the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:501-516.
4. Chadwick SM, Banks P, Wright JL. The use of myofunctional appliances in the UK: a survey of British orthodontists. Dent Update 1998;25:302-308.
5. Carmichael GJ, Banks PA, Chadwick SM. A modification to enable progressive advancement of the Twin Block appliance. Br J Orthod. 1999;26:9-13.
6. Stangl DP. A cephalometric analysis of six Twin Block patients. A study of mandibular (body and ramus) growth and development. Fund Orthod. 1997;14;4-19.
7. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the Twin Block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:15-24.
8. Toth LR, McNamara Jr JA. 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.
9. Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin Block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with matched normative data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 117:54-59.
10. Yamin-Lacouture C, Woodside DG, Sektakof PA, Sessle BJ. The action of three types of functional appliances on the activity of masticatory muscles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112: 560-572.
11. O'Neill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of profile attractiveness after functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:371-376.
12. Chintakanon K, Türker KS, Sampson W, Wilkinson T, Townsend G. Effects of twin-block therapy on protrusive muscle functions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:392-396.
13. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod. 1979;75:599-617.
14. Bookstein FL. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE, eds. Advances in Morphometrics, NATO ASI Series A: Life Sciences Volume 284. London: Plenum Press; 1996:131-151.
15. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Serrao G. Dental arch asymmetry in young healthy human subjects evaluated by Euclidean distance matrix analysis. Arch Oral Biol. 1993:38;189-194.
16. 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.
17. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Localization of deformations of the midfacial complex in subjects with class III malocclusions employing thin-plate spline analysis. J Anat. 1997; 191:595-602.
18. 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 Devel Biol. 1998;18:219-227.
19. Singh GD, Clark WJ. Localization of mandibular changes in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions treated using Twin Block appliances: finite-element modeling. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:419-425.
20. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool. 1990;39:40-59.
21. Lele S, Cole TM. A new test for shape differences when variance-covariance matrices are unequal. J Human Evol. 1996;31:193-212.
22. Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1991;86:415-427.
23. Bookstein FL. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
24. Hay AD, Singh GD. Mandibular transformations in prepubertal patients following treatment for craniofacial microsomia: thin-plate spline analysis. Clin Anat. 2000;13:361-372.
25. 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.
26. 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; 11:162-170.
27. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:104-101.
28. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Post-treatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:24-33.
29. Gesch D. A longitudinal study on growth in untreated children with Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61:20-33.
30. 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.