This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Modell W, Houde RW. Factors influencing clinical evaluation of drugs with special reference to the double-blind technique. J Am Med Assoc 1958; 167: 2190–9.Search in Google Scholar
Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research. WB Saunders Company, 1985; 690–3.Search in Google Scholar
Sackett D, Haynes B, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd Edition. Little, Brown and Company, 1991; 283–303.Search in Google Scholar
Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. New Eng J Med 1979; 301: 1410–12.Search in Google Scholar
Shaw WC, Richmond S, O'Brien KD, Brook P, Stephens CD. Quality control in orthodontics: indices of treatment need and treatment standards. Br Dent J 1991; 170: 107–12.Search in Google Scholar
Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992a; 14: 125–39.Search in Google Scholar
Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992b; 14: 180–7.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien KD, Robins R, Vig KWL, Vig PS, Shnorhokian H, Weyant R. The effectiveness of Class II, Division 1 treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 107: 329–34.Search in Google Scholar
Vig KD. Commentary: Retrospective study of two-stage treatment outcomes assessed with two modified PAR indices. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 525–6.Search in Google Scholar
Freer TJ. Need for reappraisal of the uses of indices. Aust J Orthod 1996; 14: 110.Search in Google Scholar
Hamdan AM, Rock WP. An appraisal of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and a suggested new weighting system. Eur J Orthod 1999; 21: 181–92.Search in Google Scholar
Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG, Roberts CT, Andrews M. Orthodontics in General Dental Service of England and Wales: a critical assessment of standards. Br Dent J 1993; 174: 315–29.Search in Google Scholar
Trayfoot J, Richardson A. Angle Class II Division 1 mal-occlusions treated by the Andresen method. Br Dent J 1968; 124: 516–9.Search in Google Scholar
Wieslander L, Lagerström L. The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1979; 75: 20–6.Search in Google Scholar
Luder HU. Effects of activator treatment: evidence for the occurrence of two different types of reaction. Eur J Orthod 1981; 3: 205–22.Search in Google Scholar
Hamilton SD, Sinclair PM, Hamilton RH. A cephalo-metric, tomographic, and dental cast evaluation of Fränkel therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987; 92: 427–34.Search in Google Scholar
Chang H-F, Wu K-M, Chen K-C, Cheng M-C. Effects of activator treatment on Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Clin Orthod 1989; 23: 560–3.Search in Google Scholar
Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993; 104: 153–61.Search in Google Scholar
Courtney M, Harkness M, Herbison P. Maxillary and cranial base changes during treatment with functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 109: 616–24.Search in Google Scholar
Webster T, Harkness M, Herbison P. Associations between changes in selected facial dimensions and the outcome of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 46–53.Search in Google Scholar
Tweed CH. Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944; 30: 405–28.Search in Google Scholar
Mills JRE. The stability of the lower labial segment. A cephalometric survey. Dent Practit 1968; 18: 293–305.Search in Google Scholar
Hixon E, Klein P. Simplified mechanics: A means of treatment based on available scientific information. Am J Orthod 1972; 62, 113–41.Search in Google Scholar
Simons ME, Joondeph DR. Change in overbite: A ten-year post retention study. Am J Orthod 1973; 64: 349–67.Search in Google Scholar
Houston WJB, Edler R. Long-term stability of the lower labial segment relative to the A-Pog line. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12: 302–10.Search in Google Scholar
British Standards Institution 1983 BS4492. British standard glossary of terms relating to dentistry. London: British Standards Institution, 1983.Search in Google Scholar
Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 585–99.Search in Google Scholar
Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 1983; 5: 1–46.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston LE. Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: An integrated analysis of change. Br J Orthod 1996; 23: 93–102.Search in Google Scholar
Scott PJ. The reflex plotters: measurement without photographs. Photogrammetric Record 1981; 10: 435–46.Search in Google Scholar
Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurments. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 382–90.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobsson SO. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, Division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1967; 53: 446–57.Search in Google Scholar
Cook PA, Gravely JF. Tracing error with Björk's mandibular structures. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 169–78.Search in Google Scholar
Derringer K. A cephalometric study to compare the effects of cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Part 2: Dentoalveolar changes. Br J Orthod 1990; 17: 89–99.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobsson S-O, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in Angle Class II: 1 cases. A roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12: 174–84.Search in Google Scholar
Lobb WK, Ismail AI, Andrews CL, Spracklin TE. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment using the Dental Aesthetic Index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 106: 70–5.Search in Google Scholar
Keeling, S. D., King, G. J., Wheeler, T. T. and McGorray, S. Timing of Class II treatment: Rationale, methods, and early results of an ongoing randomised clinical trial. In: Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, 1995; 30: 81–112.Search in Google Scholar
Tulloch JFC, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treatment: Progress report of a two phase randomised clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 62–72.Search in Google Scholar
McKnight MM, Daniels CP, Johnston LE. A retrospective study of two-stage treatment outcomes assessed with two modified PAR indices. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 521–4.Search in Google Scholar
