An investigation of cephalometric and morphological predictors of successful Twin Block therapy

1 Tulloch JF, Medland W, Tuncay OC. Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:340-7. Search in Google Scholar

2 O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Davies L, Connolly I et al. Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:573-9. Search in Google Scholar

3 Tulloch JF, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:657-67. Search in Google Scholar

4 Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:481-9. Search in Google Scholar

5 O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, 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;124:234-43. Search in Google Scholar

6 Franchi L, Baccetti T. Prediction of individual mandibular changes induced by functional jaw orthopedics followed by fixed appliances in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2006;76:950-4. Search in Google Scholar

7 Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72:410-17. Search in Google Scholar

8 Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:533-9. Search in Google Scholar

9 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement, Lancet 1986;1,8476;307-10. Search in Google Scholar

10 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:698.e1-10. Search in Google Scholar

11 Ahn SJ, Kim JT, Nahm DS. Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the bionator. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:578-86. Search in Google Scholar

12 Reynolds M, Reynolds M, Adeeb S, El-Bialy T. 3-d volumetric evaluation of human mandibular growth. Open Biomed Eng J 2011;5:83-9. Search in Google Scholar

13 Ruf S, Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction during Herbst therapy in relation to the vertical jaw base relationship: A cephaometric roentgenographic study. Angle Orthod 1997;67:271-6. Search in Google Scholar

14 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:340-7. Search in Google Scholar

15 Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ 2009;338:b375. Search in Google Scholar

16 Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009;338:b605 Search in Google Scholar