Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 1988 10(1):203-214; doi:10.1093/ejo/10.1.203
© 1988 by European Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerr, W. J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Tenhave, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kerr, W. J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Tenhave, T. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

A comparison of three appliance systems in the treatment of Class III malocclusion

W. J. S. Kerr*,1 and T. R. Tenhave**

*University of Glasgow Scotland, U.K.
**University of Michigan Ann Arbor USA

1W. J. S. Kerr Glasgow Dental Hospital and School 378 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow, G2 3JZ

The modes of action of the Function Regulator III, Upper Removable Appliances and the Edgewise appliance were compared by analysing the cephalometric records of 66 subjects, treated for Class III malocclusion, with anterior crossbite, both by means of conventional and tensor methods.

These were found to be similar for the three appliances and were characterized by a change in mandibular posture, increasing lower face height and reducing angle SNB, as compared with a control group, combined with varying degrees of incisor proclination and retroclination. The FR.III group, however, showed a small but significant increase in cranial base flexure compared with the other groups, as well as greater improvement in skeletal relationships as compared with the URA group, particularly when assessed by Enlow's method. The differences in upper and lower incisor inclinations combined with other effects produced by the appliances were assessed by an ‘efficiency ratio’ which related the amount of change in incisor inclination produced for each millimetre of increase in overjet as follows: FR.III = 1.8, Edgewise = 2.1 and URA = 2.8.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.