Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2002; 34(2): 105-115
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-32854
Articles

© Georg Thieme Verlag

Eine kritische Bewertung der Pitchfork-Analyse

A critical evaluation of the Pitchfork analysis[*] Roland Männchen
  • Klinik für Kieferorthopädie und Kinderzahnmedizin der Universität Zürich · Schweiz
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 July 2002 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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

1 Dieser Artikel ist als Originalarbeit erschienen im European Journal of Orthodontics 2001; 23: 1-14

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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Begg P R, Kesling P C. Begg orthodontic theory and technique. 2nd edn W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Björk A. Facial growth in man studied with the aid of metallic implants.  Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 1955;  13 9-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Björk A, Skieller V. Roentgencephalometric growth analysis of the maxilla.  Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society. 1977b;  88 209-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Blackwood H O. Clinical management of the Jasper Jumper.  J Clin Orthod. 1991;  25 755-760
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Broadbent B H. The face of the normal child.  Angle Orthod. 1937;  7 183-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brodie A G. On the growth pattern of the human head.  American Journal of Anatomy. 209-262;  68 1941
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cash R G. Adult nonextraction treatment with a Jasper Jumper.  J Clin Orthod. 1991;  25 43-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hashim H A, Godfrey K. The reproducibility of Johnston's cephalometric superimposition method.  Australian Orthodontic J. 1990;  11 227-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Iseri H, Solow B. Growth displacement of the maxilla in girls studied by the implant method.  Eur J Orthod. 1990;  12 389-398
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Johnston L E. Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: An integrated analysis of change.  Br J Orthod. 1996;  23 93-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Levin R I. Treatment results with the Begg technique.  Am J Orthod. 1977;  72 239-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment.  Am J Orthod. 1982;  82 104-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ricketts R M. A foundation for cephalometric communication.  Am J Orthod. 1960;  46 330-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ricketts R M. The bioprogressiv therapy. Rocky Mountain/Orthodontics Denver; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Steiner C C. Cephalometrics for you and me.  Am J Orthod. 1953;  3939 729-755
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Teuscher U. A growth-related concept for skeletal Class II treatment.  Am J Orthod. 1978;  74 258-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Teuscher U. An appraisal of growth and reaction to extraoral anchorage.  Am J Orthod. 1986;  89 113-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Teuscher U. Quantitative Resultate einer wachstumsbezogenen Behandlungsmethode des Distalbisses bei jugendlichen Patienten. Habilitationsschrift. Hüthig Heidelberg; 1988
    Google Scholar

Dr. Roland Männchen

Bahnhofplatz 5b

CH-Winterthur

Phone: +41 52 214 31555

Fax: +41 52 214 3152

      >