Seminars in Orthodontics
Volume 13, Issue 3 , Pages 200-208 , September 2007

Two Superimposition Methods to Assess Class III Treatment

  • Eustaquio Araujo

      Affiliations

    • President and Professor of Orthodontics at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, and Adjunct Professor in the Center for Advanced Dental Education at Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Eustaquio Araujo, DDS, MDS, Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Rua Dona Cecilia, 145, Apt 204, Serra, Belo Horizonte 30220-070, Brazil. Phone: 55-31-32279673
    • ,
  • Brian J. Kim

      Affiliations

    • Private Practice at Redlands, CA.
    • ,
  • Gary Wolf

      Affiliations

    • Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Orthodontics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

References 

  1. Ghafari J, Efstratiadis SS. Mandibular displacement and dentitional changes during orthodontic treatment and growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:12–19
  2. Brodie AG. On the growth pattern of the human head from the third month to the eight year of life. Am J Anat. 1941;68:209–262
  3. DeCoster L. The familial line, studied by a new line of reference. 28th Congress Eur Orthod Soc. 1952;50–55
  4. Bjork A. Cranial base development (A follow-up-ray study of the individual variation in growth occurring between the ages 12 and 20 years and its relation to brain case and face development). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1955;41:198–225
  5. Ford EHR. Growth of the human cranial base. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1958;44:498–506
  6. Graber TM. Implementation of the roentgenographic cephalometric technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1958;44:906–932
  7. Bishara SE, Athanasiou AE. Cephalometric methods for assessment of dentofacial changes. In:  Athanasiou AE editors. Orthodontic Cephalometry. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995;p. 105–124
  8. Efstratiadis S, Cohen G, Ghafari J. Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:225–230
  9. Ghafari J, Baumrind S, Efstratiadis SS. Misinterpreting growth and treatment outcome from serial cephalographs. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:102–106
  10. Proffit W. Contemporary Orthodontics. 2nd ed.. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1993;
  11. Bjork A, Skieller V. Growth of the maxilla in three dimensions as revealed radiographically by the implant method. Br J Orthod. 1977;4:53–64
  12. Baumrind S, Korn E, Ben-Bassat Y, West E. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling (1. A description of osseous changes relative to superimposition on metallic implants). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91:29–41
  13. Nielsen IL. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:422–431
  14. Doppel DM, Damon WM, Joondeph DR, Little RM. An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105:161–168
  15. Elmajian KE. A serial study of facial growth as related to cranial base morphology. Master thesis: University of Washington; 1959;
  16. Rakosi T, Schilli W. Class III anomalies: a coordinated approach to skeletal, dental, and soft tissue problems. J Oral Surg. 1981;39:860–870
  17. Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:583–592
  18. Chong Y-H, Ive JC, Artun J. Changes following the use of protraction headgear for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:351–362

PII: S1073-8746(07)00030-8

doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2007.05.001

Seminars in Orthodontics
Volume 13, Issue 3 , Pages 200-208 , September 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution