Angle classification revisited 2: a modified Angle classification.

Edward Angle, in his classification of malocclusions, appears to have made Class I a range of abnormality, not a point of ideal occlusion. Current goals of orthodontic treatment, however, strive for the designation "Class I occlusion" to be synonymous with the point of ideal intermeshing and not a broad range. If contemporary orthodontists are to continue to use Class I as a goal, then it is appropriate that Dr. Angle's century-old classification, be modified to be more precise.

Angle classification revisited. 1: Is current use reliable?

The Angle method for the classification of malocclusion has been the standard in orthodontics for 100 years, but many academics and private practitioners find difficulty applying the Angle system to malocclusions in between fully Class II and fully Class III. To evaluate whether orthodontists are consistent in classifying malocclusions accordings to Angle's method, study models were selected of three patients with ideal buccal occlusions, two patients with mutilated occlusions, and five patients with varying degrees of Class II tendency. One buccal view was photographed of each study model, and a questionnaire was printed and sent to 347 orthodontists. The 77.8% response demonstrated significant interest in the subject of dental classification and significant disagreement among orthodontists in their classification response with all patients except the two obvious ideal occlusions. Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on Angle classification and their recommendations for improved classification techniques. Many of their comments are quoted.

An unexpected growth pattern: considerations in management.

A case study spanning 16 years is presented. Routine treatment with serial extraction and an edgewise appliance for a Class I crowded occlusion began when the patient was 8 years old. By the time the patient was 17, his dentition had evolved, because of unanticipated growth, into a Class III malocclusion with complete-arch crossbite. The question of whether it is most appropriate to treat this patient in one or two surgical procedures is discussed, and some controversial aspects and concerns are presented.