Traditionally, orthodontics has focused on the treatment of teeth alone, instead of the patient as a whole, including its effect on the facial profile and muscle function. We now understand there is an aetiology to malocclusion.

Charles H. Tweed applied to the Angle school in Pasadena, 1925, but was refused admittance. Angle told him to study and to become more serious about orthodontics. He applied again and was accepted, joining esteemed peers.

Our aim was to evaluate the stability of orthodontic treatment outcome and retention status seven or more years after active treatment in relation to post-treatment or post-retention time, type of retention appliance, and duration of retainer use.

The purpose of this article is to present a concept of anatomically correct occIusion that is at variance with the accepted view of this subject and outline a technique of orthodontic treatment based on rational consideration.

The present paper examines the theory using longitudinal casts and records of modern Australian aborigines who are among the first generation lacking notable interproximal attrition thanks to a 'modernised' diet.

This fanciful tale describes an 1882 meeting in London between a young American dentist and two highly acclaimed English scientists.

From the earliest periods of human history, the teeth have been subject to irregularity in arrangement, to decay and disintegration, to loosening from their attachments in the jaws, and to partial or complete removal by accident or intent.

The popularity and efficiency of light forces (that is, forces of small magnitude) in orthodontics suggest an analysis of the minimal forces produced by certain areas of the oral musculature and their influence on tooth position.

The American Association of Orthodontists' (AAO) response to the question “Will I need to wear retainers after treatment?”