In an effort to account for the individuality of the facial type, including sagittal and vertical discrepancies, Lavergne and Gasson 6 worked out a classification in the form of a 2-tier arborization. They 5 also found it useful to classify growth rotations as posterior, neutral, and anterior. In 1977, Lavergne and Gasson 4 introduced the concept of morphogenetic and positional rotations. Petrovic and Lavergne have developed a cephalo- metric analysis that also generates a growth prediction. One of the recurrent themes in the orthodontic literature, therefore, is a desire to predict the course of craniofacial development and to know in advance a given patient’s growth potential and response to orthodontic treatment. A poor growth pattern during treatment will make it difficult to achieve a skeletal correction and to improve the facial profile. 3 Success of treatment depends both on the clinician’s ability and on the patient’s growth pat- tern. The growth potential of individuals with Class II malocclusion is of interest to practicing orthodontists because this type of malocclusion represents a significant percentage of the cases they treat. 86 S ince Angle’s definition of Class II maloc- clusion, 1 there has been relatively little disagreement concerning the associated dental characteristics 2 how- ever, numerous concepts have been proposed concern- ing cause, development, and treatment.
0 kommentar(er)
