This paper describes the orthodontic treatment of two cases awarded the prize by the British Orthodontic Society for best treated cases submitted for the Membership in Orthodontics. The first case reports on the treatment of a class III malocclusion with increased vertical lower anterior facial proportions and dentoalveolar compensation that was treated with orthodontic camouflage. The second case reports on the treatment of a class II division II malocclusion with reduced vertical lower anterior facial proportions and an overbite complete to the palate, which was treated with orthodontic camouflage.
RickettsRM. Perpectives in the clinical applications of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod1981; 51: 115–50.
2.
BoltonWA. Disharmony in the tooth size and it's relation to the analysis and treatment of malocclusion. Am J Orthod1988; 28: 113–30.
3.
BrookPH, ShawWC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod1989; 11: 309–20.
4.
RichmondS, ShawWC, RobertsCT, AndrewsM.The PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating) methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment and standards. Eur J Orthod1992; 14: 180–87.
5.
MillsJR. The application and importance of cephalometry in orthdodontic treatment. The Orthodontist1970; 2: 32–47.
6.
JacobsenA.The ‘Wits’ appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod1975; 67: 125–38.
7.
BjörkA.Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod1969; 55: 585–99.
8.
SkiellerV, BjörkA, Linde-HansenT.Prediction of mandibular growth rotation evaluated from a longitudinal implant sample. Am J Orthod1984; 86: 359–70.
LapatkiBG, MagerAS, Schulte-MoentingJ, JonasIE. The importance of the level of the lip line and resting lip pressure in Class II, Division 2 malocclusion. J Dent Res2002; 81: 323–28.
11.
Selwyn-BarnettBJ. Rationale of treatment for Class II division 2 malocclusion. Br J Orthod1991; 18: 173–81.
