• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.27 no.5 s.64
• /
• pp.669-682
• /
• 1997

[$Bj\ddot{o}rk$] and Skieller concluded after following facial growth patterns using implants in upper and lower jaw bones that stable structures, which are not influenced by the growth do exist and so these must be the reference landmarks in the process of superimposition. In spite of such facts, for the last 40 years since the discovery of stable structures, most orthodontists have preferred best fit superimposition method to structural method. Cases such as Angle's Class II division 2 malocclusion that show characteristic forward and upward growth or one under long period of post-treatment observation demonstrate that distinct differences exist between the two methods of superimposition. Today, ethical concerns prohibit further growth studies that use implants, md so there is no choice but to use stable structural superimposition method based on $Bj\ddot{o}rk's$ data. Thus, to encourage clinical use of stable structural superimposition method, logic for the use of stable structural superimposition method will be demonstrated, and its technical methods of application will be introduced step by step.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.1 s.84
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2001

The extraction lot orthodontic treatment can be adopted for aligning crowded dentition, improving facial esthetics and solving a skeletal discrepancy as alternative for a surgical option. Mandibular second premolar extraction was often selected as treatment plan when there we very little or no space shortage in lower arch or limited retraction of the lower incisors was required. The primary object of this study was evaluate a pretreatment condition and examine the amount of tooth movement ior a mandibular second premolar extraction in growing patients. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 14 cases that had their four first premolar extracted (4/4 group), 15 cases with upper first and lower second premolar extraction (4/5 group) were selected. Structural method superimposition was conducted to evaluate a difference of dental change between 4/4 and 4/5 group. The results were as follows, 1. Pretreatment factor for 4/4 extraction or 4/5 extraction choice included maxillary incisor axis to occlusal plane, Class II molar relationship, IMPA and interincisal angle. 2. The amount of molar anterior movement in 4/5 group was greater than that of 4/4 group(p<0.05). 3. There was no significant difference between 4/4 group and 4/5 group in aspects of maxillary tooth movement(p<0.05).