Predictive value of morphologic parameters for successful correction of Class II Division 2 malocclusion

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volumn 123, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 279-285

  Zentner, Andrej ^a,b   Peylo, Stephan ^a   Brothag, Dieter ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALOCCLUSION; MORPHOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTION; TOOTH ROOT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; CHILD; HISTOLOGY; MAXILLA; ORTHODONTICS; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOOTH ARCH;

CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; DENTAL ARCH; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MAXILLA; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0037363004     PISSN: 08895406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.15     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Proffit WR, Ackerman JL. Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 2nd ed. St Louis: C. V. Mosby; 1994. p. 3-95.
2. Burden DJ, McGuinness N, Stevenson M, McNamara T. Predictors of outcome among patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:452-9.
3. Kim JC, Mascarenhas AK, Joo BH, Vig KW, Beck FM, Vig PS. Cephalometric variables as predictors of Class II treatment outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:636-40.
4. Zentner A, Doll GM. Size discrepancy of apical bases and treatment success in Angle Class III malocclusion. J Orofacial Orthop 2001;62:97-106.
5. Zentner A, Doll GM, Peylo SM. Morphological parameters as predictors of successful correction of Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:383-92.
6. Lundström A. Malocclusion of the teeth regarded as a problem in connection with the apical base. Stockholm: Fahlerantz; 1923.
7. Tweed CH. A philosophy of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1945;31:74-103.
8. Rees DJ. A method for assessing the proportional relation of apical bases and contact diameters of the teeth. Am J Orthod 1953;39:695-707.
9. Sergl HG, Kerr WJS, McColl JH. A method of measuring the apical base. Eur J Orthod 1996;18:479-83.
10. McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984;86:449-69.
11. Schwarz AM. Roentgenostatics. A practical evaluation of the x-ray headplate. Am J Orthod 1961;47:561-85.
12. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Andrews M, Roberts CT. The PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180-7.
13. Battagel JM. A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:305-14.
14. Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R. Multivariate analysemethoden. Berlin: Springer; 1994.
15. Johnston LE. A statistical evaluation of cephalometric prediction. Angle Orthod 1968;38:284-304.
16. Proffit WR. The search for truth: diagnosis. In: Proffit WR, White RP Jr, editors. Surgical-orthodontic treatment. St Louis: C. V. Mosby; 1991. p. 96-141.
17. Hujoel PP, Armitage GC, García RI. A perspective on clinical significance. J Periodontol 2000;71:1515-8.
18. Kerr WJ, Ford I. The variability of some craniofacial dimensions. Angle Orthod 1991;61:205-10.
19. Pancherz H, Zieber K. Dentoskeletal morphology in children with deckbiss. J Orofacial Orthop 1998;59:274-85.
20. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Class II Division 2 malocclusion: a heritable pattern of small teeth in well-developed jaws. Angle Orthod 1998;68:9-20.