© 2006 - The Charles H. Tweed International Foundation
© 2006 - The Charles H. Tweed International Foundation © 2006 - The Charles H. Tweed International Foundation
Fig. 11. Posttreatment dental castsFig. 10. Posttreatment facial photographs (III)Fig. 13. SuperimpositionFig. 12. Postreatment cephalometrics (III)Fig. 14. Local superimpositionFig. 15. Facial change compositeCONCLUSIONIt seems apparent that the patients’ facial pattern is a strong determining factor in the treatment decision. Aclosed facial type is going to age faster because of a decrease in the vertical plane in the lower face. It is whyextractions in low angle patients are counterindicated. The objective for these patients is to increase the vertical facialheight. The total facial change (Fig.15) for this patient was very positive.45
References:1. Dale J.G.. Longitudinal growth and develoment studies and prediction. J Tweed 1975; 3:22.2. Dale J.G. Interceptive guidance of occlusion with emphasis on diagnosis. Ch. 6, p.291-379 in Graber TM;Vanarsdal RLJr. Orthodontics; current principles and techniques (2 nd ed., 965 P.) St Louis: Mosby, 1994.3. Horn A.J. Facial height index. Am J Orthod 1992; 102:180-6.4. Horn A.J., Jégou I. La philosophie de Tweed aujourd’hui. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale 1993; 27:163-181.5. Horn A.J., Jégou I. Une nouvelle technique: l’Edgewise Tweed-Merrifield. Rev Orthop Dento Faciale1995;29:511-27.6. Jégou I. Aménagement de l’occlusion: les thérapeutiques d’accompagnement et d’interception en denture mixte.J Edg 1994; 30:37-56.7. Jégou I. L’Orthodontie chez l’enfant. Diagnostic et gestes utiles en denture mixte. Réal Clin 1997; 8:243-53.8. Martin M. Variante en technique de Tweed, dans les cas de classe II traités sans extractions. J Edg 1997;36:47-59.9. Noffel, S.E.: Danger signs of the occlusion face. J Tweed 1986;14: 50-96.10. Richier D, Horn-Pantaloni C. Quand et comment utiliser le moteur de la croissance. J Edg 1996; 33:11-23.11. Decker, A.: Traitement s de classe II sans extractions de prémolaires. J Edg 20:89-114.46
- Page 1 and 2: © 2006
- Page 5 and 6: Chairman of the Board Report 2006Ja
- Page 7 and 8: Tribute: Dr. Herbert A. Klontz, Twe
- Page 9 and 10: He was not only generous in Toronto
- Page 11 and 12: Director of Education — Herb Klon
- Page 13 and 14: Orthodontic Treatment of a Low Angl
- Page 15: Fig. 5. McNamara’s NasionFrankfor
- Page 19: REFERENCES1. Horn AJ. Facial height
- Page 22 and 23: The more protrusive the lip profile
- Page 24 and 25: Fig. 5. B, Tracings: extraction of
- Page 26 and 27: The Extraction/Nonextraction Dilemm
- Page 28 and 29: Fig. 6. Baxter’s posttreatment ce
- Page 30 and 31: Fig. 16. Adams’ posttreatment cep
- Page 32 and 33: The Extraction/Nonextraction Dilemm
- Page 34 and 35: Fig. 12. Pretreatment dental castsF
- Page 36 and 37: Microimplant Anchorage (MIA) in Ort
- Page 38 and 39: Recently, with the rapid developmen
- Page 40 and 41: Fig. 5. Molar intrusion: A) Maxilla
- Page 43 and 44: Two Phase Treatment for Deep Bite P
- Page 45: Fig. 7a. Post orthopedic cephalomet
Fig. 11. Posttreatment dental castsFig. 10. Posttreatment facial photographs (III)Fig. 13. SuperimpositionFig. 12. Postreatment cephalometrics (III)Fig. 14. Local superimpositionFig. 15. Facial change compositeCONCLUSIONIt seems apparent that the patients’ facial pattern is a strong determining factor in the treatment decision. Aclosed facial type is going to age faster because of a decrease in the vertical plane in the lower face. It is whyextractions in low angle patients are counterindicated. <strong>The</strong> objective for these patients is to increase the vertical facialheight. <strong>The</strong> total facial change (Fig.15) for this patient was very positive.45
Change language