[
BIRKEBAEK,L.,MELSEN,B. and TERP,S.(1984) A laminagraphic study of the alterations in the temporomandibular joint following activator treatment Eur.J.Orthod .6:257-266
]Search in Google Scholar
[
BISHARA,S.E. and ZIAJA,R.R.(1989) Functional appliances: A review Am.J.Orthod.95:250-258
]Search in Google Scholar
[
BJORK,A.(1951) The principle of the Andresen method of orthodontic treatment, a discussion based on cephalometric x-ray analysis of treated cases Am.J.Orthod.37:437-458
]Search in Google Scholar
[
CALVERT,F.J.(1982) An assessment of Andresen therapy on Class II division 1 malocclusion Br.J.Orthod.9:149-153
]Search in Google Scholar
[
CREEKMORE,T.D. and RADNEY,L.J.(1983) Frankel appliance therapy: Orthopedic or orthodontic? Am.J.Orthod.83:89-108
]Search in 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 1 malocclusion. Part 1 - skeletal changes Br.J.Orthod.17:33-46
]Search in Google Scholar
[
FOSBERG,C.M. and ODENRICK,L.(1981) Skeletal and soft tissue response to activator treatment Eur.J.Orthod.3:247-253
]Search in Google Scholar
[
GIANELLY.A.A.,ARENA,S.A. and BERNSTEIN,L.( 1984) A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the Iightwire, edgewise, and Frankel appliances Am.J.Orthod.86:269-276
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HARVOLD,E.P. and VARGEVIK,K.S.(1971) Morphogenetic response to activator treatment Am.J.Orthod.60:478-490
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HASHIM,H. A. and GODFREY,K.(1990) The reproducibility of Johnston’s cephalometric superimposition method Aust.Orthod.J.11(2):100-105(in press)
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HOUSTON,W.J.B.(1983) The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements Am.J.Orthod.83:382-390
]Search in Google Scholar
[
JAKOBSSON,S.O.(1967) Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, Division 1 Am.J.Orthod.53:446-457
]Search in Google Scholar
[
JOHNSTON.L.E.Jr.(1986) A comparative analysis of Class II treatments In: Science and Clinical Judgement in Orthodontics Monograph 19, Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan pp103-148
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LAGERSTROM.L.O.,NIELSEN,I.L.,LEE,R. and ISSACSON,R.J.(1990) Dental and skeletal contributions to occlusal correction in patients treated with the high-pull headgear-activator combination Am.J.Orthod.97:495-504
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LUDER,H.U.(1981) Effects of activator treatment -evidence for the occurrence of two different types of reaction Eur.J.Orthod.3:205-222
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LUDER,H.U.(1982) Skeletal profile changes related to two patterns of activator effects Am.J.Orthod.81:390-396
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MARSCHNER,J. and HARRIS,J.(1966) Mandibular growth and Class II treatment Angle Orthod.36:89-93
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MEACH,C.L.(1966) A cephalometric comparison of bony profile changes in Class II division 1 patients treated with extraoral force and functional jaw orthopedics Am.J.Orthod.52:353-370
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MILLS,J.R.E.(1978) The effect of orthodontic treatment on the skeletal pattern Br.J.Orthod.5:133-143
]Search in Google Scholar
[
PANCHERZ.H.(1984) A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment Am, J.Orthod.85:125-134
]Search in Google Scholar
[
PFEIFFER,J.P. and GROBERTY,D.(1972) Simultaneous use of cervical appliance and activator: An orthopedic approach to fixed appliance therapy Am.J.Orthod.61:353-373
]Search in Google Scholar
[
REEY.W.R. and EASTWOOD,A.(1978) The passive activator: Case selection, treatment response, and corrective mechanics Am.J.Orthod.73:378-409
]Search in Google Scholar
[
REMMER,K.R.,MAMANDRAS.A.H.,HUNTER,W.S. and WAY,D.C.(1985) Cephalometric changes associated with treatment using the activator, the Frankel appliance, and the fixed appliance Am.J.Orthod.88:363-372
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ROBERTSON,N.R.E.(1983) An examination of treatment changes in children treated with the function regulator of Frankel Am.J.Orthod.83:299-310
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TRAYFOOD,J. and RICHARDSON,A.(1968) Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Andresen method Br.Dent. J. 124:516-519
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TULLEY,W.J.(1972) The scope and limitations of treatment with the activator Am,J.Orthod.61:562-577
]Search in Google Scholar
[
VARGERVIK,K. and HARVOLD,E.P.(1985) Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions Am. J.Orthod.88:242-251
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WEINBERGER,T.W.( 1974) Extra-oral traction and functional appliances - a cephalometric comparison Br.J.Ortho.1:35-39
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WIESLANDER,L. and LAGERSTROM.L.(1979) The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions Am. J .Orthod.75:20-26
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WILLIAMS,S. and MELSEN,B.(1982) The interplay between sagittal and vertical growth factors. An implant study of activator treatment Am.J.Orthod.81:327-332
]Search in Google Scholar
