Volume 100
Number 2
of these parameters would suggest an increased flexure
of the posterior cranial base, (5) the association of molar
relation, ramus position, and potion location correctly
classified 92.14% of the total population, (6) obser-
vation of simple .correlation of coefficients between the
seven Class III indicators demonstrated a high corre-
lation of the proposed new variables (Xi. to Pt vertical,
Xi to SNa vertical, and Xi-S-Na angle) with ramus
position, and (7) multiple regression tests indicated that
ramus position was the most consistent indicator of
Class III malocclusion.
Load deformation tesI of metal brackets: A
comparative study
Luke K. Choi, Joseph M. Caruso,
Daniel A. Flores, M. Toufic Jeiroudi,
Jack L. Tomlinson, Garland E. Scott, Jr.
Loma Linda, Calif.: Loma Linda University, 1990
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect
material and design (slot torque degree and wing type)
had on the force and stress to permanently deform metal
brackets.
Fourteen different types of metal brackets were
tested and categorized into three categories. The three
categories were raw material composition, slot torque
degree, and wing type. There were five types of raw
material (310SS, 316L, 303SE, 303S, and 17-4PH),
three types of slot torque degree (0 °, 7 °, and 12°), and
four types of wing design (mini twin, single, regular
twin, and modified twin). All brackets were tested with
the arch wire torque test developed by Flores.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student's
t test showed that raw material, wing type, and slot
torque degree had a significant effect on the force and
stress to permanently deform metal brackets. Of the
three variables, raw material had the greatest effect on
the force to permanently deform metal brackets.
Results showed that 17-4PH and 303S had higher
yield strengths, and regular twin had higher resistance
to deformation. Also, as slot torque increased, brackets
deformed with less force.
A positive correlation between the micro hardness
and the stress to deform metal brackets confirmed that
brackets with the greatest stress to permanently deform
were made of steels with the greatest hardness.
R e v i e w s a n d abstracts 195
CO-CR comparison of untreated and
treated CL II Div 1 Cases
James W. Davis, James R. Wise,
Cielan G. Ehrler, John K. Pearson
Loma Linda, Calif.: Loma Linda University, 1990
The purpose of this retrospective study was to com-
pare the CO-CR differences in pretreatment and post-
treatment Class II, Division 1 patients. Similar sample
groups were chosen from patients of the graduate ortho-
dontic clinic at Loma Linda University School of Den-
tistry.
Each patient's models were mounted on a Sam II
articulator with a face-bow transfer and a centric re-
lation check bite. The CO-CR discrepancies in the
anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and side-shift di-
mensions were determined with the Mandibular Posi-
tion Indicator.
With t test analyses, statistically significant differ-
ences were found between the pretreatment and post-
treatment groups, with the posttreatment sample exhib-
iting a smaller CO-CR discrepancy than the pretreat-
ment sample.
Facial typing methods: A
comparative study
James A. Grabow, M. Toufic Jeiroudi,
Michael J. Fillman, Roland D. Waiters
Loma Linda, Calif.: Loma Lhzda Universit). 1990
Facial typing methods are used to determine to
which of three basic facial pattern categories an indi-
vidual patient belongs. These three categories are me-
sofacial, brachyfacial, and dolichofacial. It is important
to establish the correct facial type because the reaction
to treatment mechanics and the stability of the denture
is dependent on the analysis of the facial patterns. The
purpose of this paper was to show a comparative study
of facial typing classification method used on 100 pa-
tients (47 boys and girls). The eight different methods
used were as follows: Bioprogressive, Ricketts, LLU1,
LLU2, QuickCeph, Jarabak, Facial-Mandibular Index,
and Steiner. The Biopro~gressive method served as the
control. The Bioprogressive derivative methods (Rick-
etts, LLU1, LLU2, and QuickCeph) had approximately
93% agreement, whereas Steiner, Jarabak, and Facial-
Mandibular Index had 75%, 62%, and 46% agreement,
respectively.