Orthodontics. Part 5: Appliance choices

British Dental Journal

Volumn 196, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 9-18

  Roberts Harry, D ^a   Sandy, J ^b  

^a LEEDS DENTAL INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DENTAL CARE; DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; REVIEW; ARTICLE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALOCCLUSION; METHODOLOGY; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE;

HUMANS; MALOCCLUSION; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE;

EID: 1442307884     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810872     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD et al. The development of the PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 125-139.
2. Richmond S, Shaw W C, Roberts C T, Andrews M. The PAR index (Peer Assessment rating): methods to determine the outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvements and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 180-187.
3. Kerr W J S, Buchanan I B, McColl J H. The use of the PAR index in assessing the effectiveness of removable orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod 1993; 20: 351-357.
4. Leighton B C. The early signs of malocclusion. Trans Europ Orthod Soc 1969; 353-368.
5. O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 128-137.