The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 4 ( November, 2003 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Orthodontic Treatment Planning: Do Orthodontists Treat to Cephalometric Norms?

Khalid M. Al-Balkhi

Citation Information : Al-Balkhi KM. Orthodontic Treatment Planning: Do Orthodontists Treat to Cephalometric Norms?. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003; 4 (4):12-27.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-4-4-12

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2005

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2003; The Author(s).


Abstract

Citation

Al-Balkhi KM. Orthodontic Treatment Planning: Do Orthodontists Treat to Cephalometric Norms? J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 November;(4)4:012-027.

PDF Share
  1. al. Cephalometric norms in Japanese adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Feb;56(2):129-34.
  2. A comparison of outcomes of orthodontic and surgicalorthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Jun;101(6):556-65.
  3. An assessment of treatment outcome in American Board of Orthodontics cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Mar;111(3):335-42.
  4. Handbook of Orthodontics 4 th ed. Chicago 1988, Y.B.M.P.
  5. al. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod. 1992 Jun;14(3):180-7.
  6. Contemporary Orthodontics 2 nd ed. USA, 1992 Mosby.
  7. al. An Atlas of Craniofacial Growth 2 nd ed., Center for Human Growth and Development. The University of Michigan 1973.
  8. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1980 Oct;38(10):744-51.
  9. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York 1940. Interscience Publication.
  10. Biostatistical Analysis 2 nd ed. Prentia-Hall. International Inc. N.J. USA page 156-158.
  11. Orthodontics in the General Dental Services of England and Wales: the provision of treatment. Br Dent J. 1992 Feb 22;172(4):150-2.
  12. Orthodontic treatment standards in Norway. Eur J Orthod. 1993 Feb;15(1):7-15.
  13. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome: follow-up until 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Mar;115(3):300-4.
  14. A closer look at General Dental Service orthodontics in England and Wales. I: Factors influencing effectiveness. Br Dent J. 1999 Aug 28;187(4):211-6.
  15. Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod. 1967 Oct;37(4):285-97. No abstract available.
  16. Effects of cervical anchorage during and after treatment: an implant study. Am J Orthod. 1978 May;73(5):526-40.
  17. Change in relationship of points A and B during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1956;42:176-93.
  18. The effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on the mandibular position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Nov;100(5):443-52.
  19. Mandibular growth direction with conventional Class II nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Jun;101(6):543-9.
  20. al. Mandibular plane changes during maxillary retraction. Am J Orthod. 1978 Jul;74(1):32-40. No abstract available.
  21. Posttreatment changes of skeletal morphology following treatment aimed at restriction of maxillary growth. Am J Orthod. 1985 Oct;88(4):288-96.
  22. al. A cephalometric appraisal of edgewise Class II nonextraction treatment with extraoral force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Apr;93(4):315-24.
  23. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res. 1963 Jan-Feb;42(1)Pt 2:400-11. No abstract available.
  24. Retrospective on progressive dentofacial changes after treatment and retention. J Clin Orthod. 1970 Apr;4(4):193-206. No abstract available.
  25. Retrospective on progressive dentofacial changes after treatment and retention. 4. J Clin Orthod. 1970 Jul;4(7):407-17. No abstract available.
  26. Physiologic recovery after cervical traction therapy. Am J Orthod. 1974 Sep;66(3):294-301. No abstract available.
  27. Cephalometric for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.
  28. The Frankfort mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1954;24:121-69.
  29. A textbook of Orthodontics, 2 nd Ed., UK 1992, Wright.
  30. Periodontal profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1961;47:371-9.
  31. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod 1977;72:165-75.
  32. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982 Nov;82(5):384-91.
  33. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(1):31-42.
  34. al. Comparison of the changes in facial profile after orthodontic treatment, with and without extractions. Br J Orthod. 1997 Feb;24(1):25-34.
  35. A Textbook of Orthodontics 2 nd Ed UK 1993, Wright.
  36. Dentofacial changes in patients with Class III malocclusions treated by a combination of activator and chin-cup appliances. Aust Orthod J. 1997 Mar;14(4):225-8.
  37. Facial balance and harmony: an attainable objective for the patient with a high mandibular plane angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Aug;114(2):176-88.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.