Скачать книгу

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

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

       Wenn der Aktivator versagt – was tun?

      Einleitung

       Скачать книгу