Iranian Journal of Orthodontics

Published by: Kowsar

Comparison of Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic Superimposition Methods in Post-Treatment Assessment of the Effects of Twin Block-Appliance Therapy

Rency Annie Abraham 1 and Shobha Sundareswaran 1 , 2 , *
Authors Information
1 Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College, Calicut, India
2 Kerala University of Health Sciences, Calicut, India
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Orthodontics: September 30, 2018, 13 (2); e12512
  • Published Online: January 1, 2019
  • Article Type: Original Article
  • Received: May 3, 2017
  • Revised: March 25, 2018
  • Accepted: April 15, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijo.12512

To Cite: Annie Abraham R, Sundareswaran S. Comparison of Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic Superimposition Methods in Post-Treatment Assessment of the Effects of Twin Block-Appliance Therapy, Iran J Ortho. 2018 ; 13(2):e12512. doi: 10.5812/ijo.12512.

Abstract
Copyright © 2019, Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2):45-66.
  • 2. Downs WB. Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod. 1956;26(4):191-212.
  • 3. McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(6):449-69. [PubMed: 6594933].
  • 4. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39(10):729-55. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7.
  • 5. Moorrees CFA. Normal variation and its bearing on the use of cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic diagnosis. Am J Orthod. 1953;39(12):942-50. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90153-5.
  • 6. Bergersen EO. A comparative study of cephalometric superimposition. Angle Orthod. 1961;31(4):216-29.
  • 7. Ghafari J, Engel FE, Laster LL. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: A review and a comparison of four methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91(5):403-13. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90393-3. [PubMed: 3472459].
  • 8. Goel S, Bansal M, Kalra A. A preliminary assessment of cephalometric orthodontic superimposition. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(2):217-22. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.2.217. [PubMed: 15130046].
  • 9. Fishman LS. Individualized evaluation of facial form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(5):510-7. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70288-9. [PubMed: 9155810].
  • 10. Johnson JS, Hubbold RJ. An introduction to centroid cephalometrics. Br J Orthod. 1982;9(1):32-6. [PubMed: 6948572].
  • 11. Dolce C, Schader RE, McGorray SP, Wheeler TT. Centrographic analysis of 1-phase versus 2-phase treatment for Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(2):195-200. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.028. [PubMed: 16102404].
  • 12. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(5):501-16. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.501. [PubMed: 9825553].
  • 13. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: A cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70232-X. [PubMed: 9674675].
  • 14. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: A prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(1):104-10. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70282-3. [PubMed: 9457025].
  • 15. Toth LR, McNamara JJ. 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(6):597-609. [PubMed: 10587592].
  • 16. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment: A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):104-13. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4. [PubMed: 6961781].
  • 17. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(2):125-34. [PubMed: 6594053].
  • 18. Windmiller EC. The acrylic-splint Herbst appliance: A cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104(1):73-84. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70030-R. [PubMed: 8322726].
  • 19. DeVincenzo JP. Changes in mandibular length before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99(3):241-57. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70006-I. [PubMed: 1998300].
  • 20. Ricketts RM. A four-step method to distinguish orthodontic changes from natural growth. J Clin Orthod. 1975;9(4):208-15. 218-28. [PubMed: 1056343].
  • 21. Sundareswaran S, Kumar V. Reliability of Beta angle in assessing true anteroposterior apical base discrepancy in different growth patterns. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2015;6(1):125-30. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.149109. [PubMed: 25810649]. [PubMed Central: PMC4367023].
  • 22. You QL, Hagg U. A comparison of three superimposition methods. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(6):717-25. [PubMed: 10665202].
  • 23. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: A comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(5):594-602. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.025. [PubMed: 17110256].
  • 24. Gill DS, Lee RT. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(4):465-72. quiz 517. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.012. [PubMed: 15821691].
  • 25. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie YW, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(3):234-43. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00352-4. [PubMed: 12970656].
  • 26. Trenouth MJ. Proportional changes in cephalometric distances during twin block appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(5):485-91. [PubMed: 12407944].
  • 27. Jena AK, Duggal R. Treatment effects of twin-block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the correction of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):485-91. doi: 10.2319/062709-359.1. [PubMed: 20050741].
  • 28. Trenouth MJ. Centroid analysis of twin-block appliance treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion. World J Orthod. 2006;7(2):159-64. [PubMed: 16779975].

Featured Image:

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments