Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Differential treatment planning for mandibular prognathism.

T P Sperry, T M Speidel, R J Isaacson

    American Journal of Orthodontics
    |May 1, 1977
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study differentiates three groups of mandibular prognathism based on treatment methods: orthodontics only (ORTHO), subapical osteotomy (SUB), and mandibular setback (SET). Findings aid in clinical decisions by identifying distinct skeletal and soft-tissue characteristics for each treatment category.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists 2001: a North American or an international society?

    The Angle orthodontist·2002
    Same author

    Moving an ankylosed central incisor using orthodontics, surgery and distraction osteogenesis.

    The Angle orthodontist·2001
    Same author

    Orthodontics and the health care industry.

    The Angle orthodontist·2001
    Same author

    Shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets with a moisture-insensitive primer.

    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics·2001
    Same author

    Patient assurance of quality orthodontic care.

    The Angle orthodontist·2001
    Same author

    A précis of the Proceedings of the First International Orthodontic Editors' Symposium, 28 April 2000.

    Journal of orthodontics·2000

    Area of Science:

    • Orthodontics and Maxillofacial Surgery
    • Craniofacial Anomaly Research
    • Skeletal Dysplasia Analysis

    Background:

    • Mandibular prognathism presents diagnostic challenges due to varied severity and presentation.
    • Differentiating treatment approaches requires understanding underlying skeletal and soft-tissue morphology.
    • Previous classifications lack clear discriminators for orthodontic versus surgical interventions.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To identify discriminant variables differentiating treatment categories for mandibular prognathism.
    • To compare orthodontic treatment (ORTHO) with surgical options: subapical osteotomy (SUB) and mandibular setback (SET).
    • To provide a basis for more precise clinical decision-making in managing prognathism.

    Main Methods:

    • Retrospective analysis of pretreatment records from 38 ORTHO, 20 SUB, and 20 SET cases.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Measurement of dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue parameters in vertical and horizontal planes.
  • Statistical comparison of means to identify discriminant variables between paired groups (ORTHO-SUB, ORTHO-SET, SUB-SET).

    • Main Results:

    • Three distinct discriminant groups of mandibular prognathism were identified based on treatment.
    • ORTHO cases differed from SUB in horizontal and vertical planes; ORTHO differed from SET in vertical and horizontal planes.
    • SUB cases were distinguished from SET cases primarily in the horizontal plane.

    Conclusions:

    • Mandibular prognathism can be categorized into three discriminant groups based on treatment modality.
    • Evaluation of anteroposterior and vertical dysplasias, alongside craniofacial divergence and profile angles, is crucial.
    • Measurements serve as diagnostic guides, emphasizing clinical judgment over rigid formulas for treatment planning.