“…The large variation in interindividual response to functional appliances may be due to several factors including compliance, appliance choice, growth potential, facial type, treatment timing, and skeletal maturity (Barton & Cook, 1997 ; Bishara & Ziaja, 1989 ; Carels & van der Linden, 1987 ; Celli et al, 2010 ; Tulloch et al, 1990 ; Woodside, 1998 ). Various cephalometric characteristics have been proposed to correlate to a favorable response to functional appliance treatment such as a low mandibular plane angle, low basal‐plane angle, high Jarabak ratio, short mandibular corpus and ramus height, short cranial base, and small anterior and posterior lower face heights (Kumar et al, 2013 ; Patel et al, 2002 ).…”