Volume 90 Number 4

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

the crown is extended to the mucogingival folds of all teeth that are to be moved orthodontically. Midline. The anatomic upper midline is transferred by means of perpendiculars to the lower model. First vertical measurements. The initial position of those teeth with excessive vertical displacement is recorded by means of a gauge. Separation. All teeth to be moved orthodontically are detached from the model with the exception of the free end, which remains as a key for the initial occlusion. Setting the lower dentition. The orthodontic frame- work is maintained by taking cross measurements. These measurements compare the initial and set-up values for the anteroposterior and transverse di- mensions. Second vertical measurement. The difference be- tween the first (initial) model and second (diagnostic set-up) vertical measurements should not exceed + 2 mm. Setting and settling of the upper dentition. The same cross measurements as mentioned under No. 6 are compared excluding the AF’ dimensions. The occlu- sion is developed according to the diagnostic set- up. The interpretation is divided into two stages. The first stage is the selection of the treatment choice. Beginning with intramaxillary interpreta- tion, single and segmental tooth movements, and anchorage requirements are evaluated. Then for the intermaxillary interpretation, the occlusal relation- ship and interarch mechanics are considered. Now various treatment alternatives can be appraised and the most appropriate selected. The second stage is utilization in therapy. Therapy is carried out based on the selected treatment choice. The article is well illustrated with diagrams and

photographs to the extent that a reader would be able to assimilate most of the information without any knowledge of the German language.

Alex Jacobson

Die Reprodozierbarkelt Okklusaler Befunde-Vergleich Zwischen Artiokulator- und Klinischer Analyse M. Janson Fortschr Kieferorthop 47: 133-140, 1986

The reliability of reproducing occlusal relationships clinically and on articular-mounted models has long been questioned. To examine the reproducibility of the two methods, the occlusions of ten persons were ana- lyzed twice in the space of 1 week. It was shown that

Reviews and abstracts 355

there was a deviation in both methods. Gcclusal contact in an articulator was shown to be more often repro- ducible than in the mouth. Slide in centric using both methods showed an equal degree of consistency. When testing individuals, the degree of disturbances was clas- sified by means of Helkimo’s Index, and it was dem- onstrated that the findings using the clinical method generally showed a higher degree of reproducibility than that on an articulator.

Alex Jaconson

Research abstracts

The Perception of Facial Esthetics in Patients Requlring Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery Michael A. Campbell University of Alabama School of Dentistry, Birmingham, 1986

The perception of facial esthetics, determination of treatment objectives, and evaluation of treatment results involves a degree of subjectivity by all observers. The patient, public, and dental professionals may all have different standards by which to judge. In this investi- gation, 30 patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment involving ortbognathic surgery completed questionnaires rating ten factors. These factors included their motivation for seeking treatment and their satis- faction with different areas of the treatment. The pro- jected pre- and posttreatment facial and intraoral slides of these patients were shown to 20 observers-five orthodontists, five senior dental students, five profes- sional laypersons, and five nonprofessional laypersons. These observers rated pre- and postreatment facial qual- ities, the pretreatment dental severity, and the degree of dental improvement shown after treatment.

The patients reported a split in motivation between esthetics (44%) and functional problems (56%). Those who indicated a primarily functional problem tended to rate their overall problem severity as being higher. Twenty-nine of the 30 patients stated that the results were as expected or greater. The average rating of sat- isfaction was 9.3 out of 10. The patient perception of the overall result of treatment correlated with the per- ception of facial improvement. The four groups of ob- servers rated the facial and dental esthetics in statisti- cally different manners, yet the difference in the mean ratings was so small that a clinical significance may not be present. The patients’ perception of problem severity correlated with the pretreatment facial ratings as given by all four groups of observers. No patient responses correlated with the dental ratings of any of the four