A Cephalometric Study to Compare the Effects of Cervical Traction and Andresen Therapy in the Treatment of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion

References

• Ahlgren, J. and Laurin, C. (1976) Late results of activator treatment: a cephalometric study, British Journal of Orthodontics, 3, 181–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andersson, I. and Ahlgren, J. (1977) Vertical growth changes during and after activator treatment, Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society, 57–67.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, M. (1971) Controlling the magnitude, direction and duration of extra oral force. American Journal of Orthodontics, 59, 217–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barton, J. J. (1972) High pull headgear versus cervical traction. A cephalometric comparison. American Journal of Orthodontics, 63, 517–529.
   Google Scholar
• Baumrind, S., Molthen, R., West, E. E. and Miller, D. M. (1979) Distal displacement of the maxilla and the upper first molar, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 630–640.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernstein, L., Ulbrich, R. W. and Gianelly, A. A. (1977) Orthopaedics versus orthodontics in class II treatment. An implant study, American Journal of Orthodontics, 72, 549–558.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calvert, F. J. (1982) An assessment of Andresen therapy on class II division malocclusions, British Journal of Orthodontics, 9, 149–153.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Creekmore, T. D. (1967) Inhibition or stimulation of vertical growth of the facial complex and its significance to treatment, Angle Orthodontist, 37, 285–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derringer, K. (1990) A cephalometric study to compare the effects of cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of class II division I malocclusion. Part I—Skeletal changes, British Journal of Orthodontics, 17, 33–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graber, T. M. (1955) Extra oral force—facts and fallacies, American Journal of Orthodontics, 41,690–705.
   Google Scholar
• Gregorak, W. (1962) The eruption path of permanent maxillary molars in class II division I malocclusion using headgear, American Journal of Orthodontics, 48, 367–380.
   Google Scholar
• Harvold, E. P. and Vargervik, K. (1971) Morphogenetic response to activator treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 60, 478–490.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jakobsson, S. O. (1967) Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on class II division I malocclusion, American Journal of Orthodontics, 53, 446–457.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• King, E. W. (1957) Cervical anchorage in class II division I treatment. A cephalometric approach, Angle Orthodontist, 27, 98–104.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, P. L. (1957) An evaluation of cervical traction on the maxilla and the upper first permanent molar, Angle Orthodontist, 27, 61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Meach, C. L. (1966) A cephalometric comparison of bony profile changes in class II division 1 patients treated with extra oral force and functional jaw orthopaedics, American Journal of Orthodontics, 52, 352–370.
   Google Scholar
• Melson, B. and Enmark, H. (1969) Effect of cervical anchorage studied by the implant method, Transactions of European Orthodontic Society, 435–437.
   Google Scholar
• Melsen, B. (1978) Effects of cervical anchorage during and after treatment: an implant study, American Journal of Orthodontics, 73, 526–539.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merrifield, L. and Cross, J. (1970) Directional forces, American Journal of Orthodontics, 57, 435–464.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mills, C. M., Holman, G. and Graber, T. M. (1978) Heavy intermittent cervical traction in class II treatment. A longitudinal cephalometric assessment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 74, 361–379.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pancherz, H. (1976) Long term effects activator treatment, Odont. Revy, 27, Supplement 35.
   Google Scholar
• Poulton, D. R. (1967) The influence of extra oral traction, American Journal of Orthodontics, 53, 8–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reey, R. W. and Eastwood, A. (1978) The passive activator: Case selection, treatment response and corrective mechanics, American Journal of Orthodontics, 73, 378–409.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricketts R. M. (1960) The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development, Angle Orthodontist, 30, 103–134.
   Google Scholar
• Ringenberg, Q. M. and Butts, W. C. (1970) A controlled cephalometric evaluation of single arch cervical therapy, American Journal of Orthodontics, 57, 179–185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riola, M. L., Moyers, R. E., McNamara, J. A. and Hunter, W. S. (1974) An atlas of cranitifacial growth, Centre for Human Growth and Development, Ann Arbor.
   Google Scholar
• Sandusky, W. C. (1965) Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Kloehn type of cervical traction used as an auxiliary with the Edgewise mechanism following Tweed's principles for the correction of class II division I malocclusion, American Journal of Orthodontics, 51, 262–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tan, C. S. (1979) The effects of cervical traction in class II division I malocclusions, MSc Thesis, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Trayfoot, J. and Richardson, A. (1968) Angle class II division I malocclusions treated by the Andresen method, British Dental Journal, 124, 516–519.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinberger, T. W. (1974) Extra oral traction and functional appliances. A cephalometric comparison, British Journal of Orthodontics, 1, 35–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wieslander, L. (1974) The effect of force on craniofacial development, American Journal of Orthodontics, 65, 531–537.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wieslander, L. and Buck, D. L. (1974) Physiologic recovery after cervical traction therapy, American Journal of Orthodontics, 66, 294–301.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wieslander, L. and Lagerstrom, L. (1979) The effect of activator treatment on class II malocclusions American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 20–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Woodside, D. G. (1974) The activator, In: Orthodontics in Daily Practice, J. A. Salzmann Philadelphia, 34, 557–591.
   Google Scholar
• Worms, F. W. Isaacson, R. J. and Speidel, T. M. (1973) A concept and classification of centre of rotation and extra oral force systems, Angle Orthodontist, 43, 384–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar