LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

during Herbst treatment, Part 2. Results and conclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:13–29

14.McNamara JA. Functional Adaptations in the Temporomandibular Joint. Dental Clinic North America 1975;19:457.

15.Andresen V, Häupl k, Petrik L. Funktionskieferorthopdie, 6. umgearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage von K. Häupl und Petrik, 1957. München: JA Barth, 1957.

16.Herren P. The activator´s mode of action. Am J Orthod 1959; 45:512–527.

17.Pancherz H. Schrittweises Bite Jumping bis zum frontalen Kreuzbiss bei der Herbst-Behandlung. Kieferorthopädie 2016;30: 135–140.

18.Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A Cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982;82:104–113.

19.Du X, Hägg U, Rabie AB. Effects of Headgear-Herbst and mandibular step-by-stepadvancement vs conventional Herbst appliance and maximal bite jumping. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:167–174.

20.Rabie ABM, Tsai M-LM, Hägg U,Du X, Chou B-W. The correlatin on replicating cells and osteogenesis in the condyle during stepwise advancement. Anfle Orthod 2003;73:457–466.

      21.Leung FYC, Rabie ABM, Hägg U. Neovascularisation and bone formation in the condyle during stepwise mandibular advancement. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:137–141.

22.Shum L, Rabie ABM, Hägg U. Vascular endothelial growth factor expressionand bone formation in posterior glenoid fossa during stepwise mandibular advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004;125:185–190.

23.Luder HU. Effects of activator treatment – evidence of the occurrence of two different types of reaction. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:205–225.

      24.Birkebaeck L, Melsen B, Terp S. A laminagraphic study of the alterations in the temporomandibuar joint following activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:267–276.

      25.Öztürk Y, Tankuter N. Class II: a comparison of activator and activator headgear combination appliances. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:149–157.

      26.Ruf S, Baltromejus S, Pancherz H. Effective Condylar Growth and Chinj Position Changes in Activator Treatment: A Cephalometric Roentgenographic Study. Angle Orthod 2001;71:4–11.

27.Türkkahraman H, Sayin MÖ. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:27–34.

28.Björk A. The principle of the Andresen method of orthodontic treatment: a discussion based on cephalometric x-say analysis of treated cases. Am J Orthod 1951;37:437–458.

      29.Jakobsson SO. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1967;53: 446–457.

      30.Harvold EP, Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1971;60:478–490.

      31.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.

      32.Jakobsson SO, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in angle Class II:1 cases: a roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:174–184.

33.Basciftci FA Ysal T, Büyükermen A, Sari Z. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:87–93.

34.Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1984;86:1–13.

      35.Wieslander L. Long-term effects of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993; 104:319–329.

      36.McNamara JA Jr, Howe RP, Dischinger TG. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98:134–144.

37.Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:375–388.

38.Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;115:607–618.

39.De Almeida MR, Henrriques JF, de Almeida RR et al. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2005:75:540–547.

40.Peterson JE, McNamara JA Jr. Temporomandibular joint Adapotations Associated with Herbst Appliance Treatment in Juvenile Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Semin Orthodont 2003;9:12–25.

41.Pancherz H. Wenn der Aktivator versagt – was tun? Kieferorthopädie 2016;30:19–26.

2

       Wenn der Aktivator versagt – was tun?

      Einleitung

Eine kieferorthopädische Behandlung des Distalbisses (Klasse II:1) im Wechselgebiss wird vorzugsweise mit einem abnehmbaren FKO-Gerät, wie zum Beispiel dem Aktivator, dem Bionator, der Fränkel-Apparatur oder dem Twin-Block durchgeführt. Von diesen abnehmbaren FKO-Geräten ist der Aktivator das älteste und bekannteste Gerät. Bei guter Patientenmitarbeit und Einhaltung gewisser Grundvoraussetzungen (Nasenatmung, Schlafstellung mit geschlossenem Mund, horizontales Kieferwachstum) sind die Behandlungsergebnisse sehr gut (Abb. 1).

       Скачать книгу