Zusammenfassung:
Die Pitchfork-Analyse hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmende Akzeptanz bei Forschern
und Klinikern erfahren, die diese zur Beurteilung von kieferorthopädischen Behandlungsresultaten
auf seitlichen Fernröntgenbildern benutzen. Die Methode wird vor allem bei Klasse-II-Fällen
eingesetzt, um zwischen dentalen und skelettalen Behandlungseffekten unterscheiden
zu können. Das Ziel dieser Studie war eine objektive Untersuchung der Pitchfork-Analyse
durch den Vergleich der mit dieser Methode erzielten kephalometrischen Resultate mit
denen der weiter verbreiteten und gesicherten Methode nach Björk.
Die Pitchfork-Analyse zeigte durchwegs eine Überschätzung der skelettalen und Unterschätzung
der dentalen Veränderungen. Diese Resultate legen nahe, dass die Pitchfork-Analyse
nicht genügend empfindlich zwischen skelettalen und dentalen Behandlungseffekten unterscheiden
kann.
Summary
The pitchfork analysis has gained increasing acceptance among researchers and clinicians
to evaluate the effects of orthodontic treatment that can be measured on lateral cephalometric
radiographs. It is primarily used in Class II cases to distinguish between the skeletal
and dental effects of such treatments. The aim of this study was to conduct an objective
evaluation of the pitchfork analysis by comparing cephalometric data obtained by that
method with those using the more conventional and established method of Björk.
The pitchfork analysis consistently provided an overestimation of the skeletal effects
and an under-estimation of the dental changes. These results indicate that the pitchfork
analysis is not sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between the skeletal and dental
effects of orthodontic treatment.
Schlüsselwörter
Fernröntgenbild - Überdeckungsmethode - Pitchfork-Analyse - Strukturelle Überdeckung
- Kephalometrie
Key words:
Lateral cephalometric radiographs - method of superimposition - pitchfork analysis
- structural superimposition - cephalometry
Literatur
1 Dieser Artikel ist als Originalarbeit erschienen im European Journal of Orthodontics
2001; 23: 1-14
- 1
Baumrind S, Korn E L, Ben-Bassat Y, West E E.
Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 1. A description of osseous changes relative
to superimposition on metallic implants.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1987a;
91
29-41
- 2
Baumrind S, Korn E L, Ben-Bassat Y, West E E.
Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 2. Masking of remodeling effects when an “anatomical”
method of superimposition is used in the absence of metallic implants.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1987b;
91
463-474
- 3 Begg P R, Kesling P C. Begg orthodontic theory and technique. 2nd edn W.B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia 1971
- 4
Björk A.
Facial growth in man studied with the aid of metallic implants.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica.
1955;
13
9-34
- 5
Björk A, Skieller V.
Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty.
Am J Orthod.
1956;
62
339-383
- 6 Björk A, Skieller V. Postnatal growth and development of the maxillary complex. In:
McNamara J A (ed) Factors affecting the growth of the midface. Monograph No. 6, Craniofacial
Growth Series, Centre for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor 1976: 61-99
- 7
Björk A, Skieller V.
Growth of the maxilla in three dimensions as revealed radiographically by the implant
method.
Brit J Orthod.
1977a;
4
53-64
- 8
Björk A, Skieller V.
Roentgencephalometric growth analysis of the maxilla.
Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society.
1977b;
88
209-233
- 9
Björk A, Skieller V.
Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible - A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric
implant studies over a period of 25 years.
Eur J Orthod.
1983;
5
1-46
- 10
Blackwood H O.
Clinical management of the Jasper Jumper.
J Clin Orthod.
1991;
25
755-760
- 11 Broadbent B H. Measurement of dentofacial changes in relation to the cranium. In:
Anderson D (ed), Practical orthodontia. 5th ed. C V Mosby Company. St. Louis 1935:
184-204
- 12
Broadbent B H.
The face of the normal child.
Angle Orthod.
1937;
7
183-208
- 13
Brodie A G.
On the growth pattern of the human head.
American Journal of Anatomy.
209-262;
68
1941
- 14
Cash R G.
Adult nonextraction treatment with a Jasper Jumper.
J Clin Orthod.
1991;
25
43-47
- 15
Cope J B, Buschang B H, Cope D D, Parker J, Blackwood H O.
Quantitative evaluation of craniofacial changes with Jasper Jumper therapy.
Angle Orthod.
1994;
64
113-122
- 16
Ghafari J, Engel F E, Laster L L.
Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: A review and a comparison of four
methods.
Am J Orthod.
1987;
91
403-413
- 17
Harris E F, Dyer G S, Vaden J L.
Age effects on orthodontic treatment: Skeletodental assessments from the Johnston
analysis.
Am J Orthod.
1991;
100
531-536
- 18
Hashim H A, Godfrey K.
The reproducibility of Johnston's cephalometric superimposition method.
Australian Orthodontic J.
1990;
11
227-231
- 19
Iseri H, Solow B.
Growth displacement of the maxilla in girls studied by the implant method.
Eur J Orthod.
1990;
12
389-398
- 20 Johnston L E. A comparative analysis of Class II treatments. In: Vig P S, Ribbens
K A (eds) Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Monograph No. 19, Craniofacial
Growth Series, Centre for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor 1985: 103-148
- 21
Johnston L E.
Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: An integrated analysis of change.
Br J Orthod.
1996;
23
93-102
- 22
Kapust A J, Sinclair P M, Turley P K.
Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison
of three age groups.
Am J Orthod.
1998;
113
204-212
- 23
Keeling S D, Cabassa S R, King G J.
Systematic and random errors associated with Johnston's cephalometric analysis.
Br J of Orthod.
1993;
20
101-107
- 24
Levin R I.
Treatment results with the Begg technique.
Am J Orthod.
1977;
72
239-260
- 25
Livieratos F A, Johnston L E.
A comparison of one-stage and two-stage non-extraction alternatives in matched Class
II patients.
Am J Orthod.
1995;
118-131
108
- 26
Luecke P E, Johnston L E.
The effect of maxillary first premolar extraction and incisor retraction on mandibular
position: Testing the central dogma of “functional orthodontics”.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1992;
101
4-12
- 27
Nielsen I L.
Maxillary superimposition: A comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation
of growth and treatment change.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1989;
95
422-431
- 28
Pancherz H.
The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment.
Am J Orthod.
1982;
82
104-113
- 29
Pancherz H.
A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction
in activator treatment.
Am J Orthod.
1984;
85
125-134
- 30
Papaioannou-Maragou O, Papaioannou A.
Comparison of treatment results with the edgewise and the the Begg approach.
J Clin Pediatric Dentistry.
1994;
19
27-30
- 31
Paquette D E, Beattie J R, Johnston L E.
A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in
“borderline” Class II patients.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1992;
102
1-14
- 32
Ricketts R M.
A foundation for cephalometric communication.
Am J Orthod.
1960;
46
330-357
- 33 Ricketts R M. The bioprogressiv therapy. Rocky Mountain/Orthodontics Denver; 1979
- 34
Steiner C C.
Cephalometrics for you and me.
Am J Orthod.
1953;
3939
729-755
- 35 Stöckli P W, Teuscher U. Combined activator headgear orthopedics. In: Graber T
M, Vanarsdall R L (eds). Orthodontics - Current principles and techniques. 2nd edn,
Mosby, St Louis 1994: 437-506
- 36
Suwannee L, Johnston L E.
The effect of premolar-extraction: A long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut”
extraction and nonextraction Class II patients.
Angle Orthod.
1993;
63
257-272
- 37
Teuscher U.
A growth-related concept for skeletal Class II treatment.
Am J Orthod.
1978;
74
258-275
- 38
Teuscher U.
An appraisal of growth and reaction to extraoral anchorage.
Am J Orthod.
1986;
89
113-121
- 39 Teuscher U. Quantitative Resultate einer wachstumsbezogenen Behandlungsmethode
des Distalbisses bei jugendlichen Patienten. Habilitationsschrift. Hüthig Heidelberg;
1988
Dr. Roland Männchen
Bahnhofplatz 5b
CH-Winterthur
Phone: +41 52 214 31555
Fax: +41 52 214 3152
