This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:125-34.Search in Google Scholar
Baltromejus S, Ruf S, Pancherz H. Effective temporomandibular joint growth and chin position changes: Activator versus Herbst treatment. A cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:627-37.Search in Google Scholar
Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R. Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:470-6.Search in Google Scholar
Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72:410-17.Search in Google Scholar
Cozza P, Baccetti L, Franchi L, De Toffol J, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1-12.Search in Google Scholar
Huang G. Functional appliances and long-term effects on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:271-2.Search in Google Scholar
Ruf S, Bendeus M, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Dentoskeletal effects and ‘effective’ temporomandibular joint, maxilla and chin changes in good and bad responders to van Beek activator treatment. Angle Orthod 2007;77:64-72.Search in Google Scholar
Bishara SE. Class II malocclusions: Diagnostic and clinical considerations with and without treatment. Semin Orthod 2006;12:11-24.Search in Google Scholar
Casutt C, Pancherz H, Gawora M, Ruf S. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:614-21.Search in Google Scholar
Rothenberg J, Campbell ES, Nanda R. Class II correction with the Twin Force Bite Corrector. J Clin Orthod 2004;38:232-40.Search in Google Scholar
Uribe F, Rothenberg J, Nanda R. The Twin Force Bite Corrector in the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescent patients. In: Papadopoulos MA, editor. Orthodontic Treatment of the Class II Non-Compliant Patient. St-Louis: Mosby; 2006. p.181-202.Search in Google Scholar
Altug-Atac AT, Dalci ON, Memikoglu UT. Skeletal Class II treatment wıth Twin Force Bite Corrector: Case reports. World J Orthod 2008;9:(e7-17).Search in Google Scholar
Chhibber A, Upadhyay M, Uribe F, Nanda R. Long-term stability of Class II correction with the Twin Force Bite Corrector. J Clin Orthod. 2010;44:363-76.Search in Google Scholar
Davoody AR, Feldman J, Uribe FA, Nanda R. Mandibular molar protraction with the Twin Force Bite Corrector in a Class II patient. J Clin Orthod 201;45:223-8.Search in Google Scholar
Guimaraes CH Jr, Henriques JF, Janson G, de Almeida MR, Araki J, Cancado RH et al. Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector. Angle Orthod 2013;83:319-26.Search in Google Scholar
Chhibber A, Upadhyay M, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector. Angle Orthod 2013;83:718-27.Search in Google Scholar
Björk A, Skieler V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:1-46.Search in Google Scholar
Shen G, Hagg U, Darendeliler M. Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible - removable vs. fixed functional appliances. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2005;8:2-10.Search in Google Scholar
Devincenzo J. The Eureka Spring: a new interarch force delivery system. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:454-67.Search in Google Scholar
Stromeyer EL, Caruso MJ, Devincenzo JP. A cephalometric study of the Class II correction effects of the Eureka Spring. Angle Orthod 2002;72:203-10.Search in Google Scholar
Vogt W. The Forsus fatigue resistant device. J Clin Orthod 2006;40:368-77.Search in Google Scholar
Nelson B, Hägg U, Hansen K, Bendeus M. A long-term follow-up study of Class II malocclusion correction after treatment with Class II elastics or fixed functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:499-503.Search in Google Scholar
Cura N, Saraç M, Öztürk Y, Sürmeli N. Orthodontic and orthopedic effects of Activator, Activator-HG combination, and Bass appliances: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:36-45.Search in Google Scholar
Toth LR, McNamara, JA. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:597-609.Search in Google Scholar
Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:104-10.Search in Google Scholar
De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W. Comparative study of the Fränkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:458-66.Search in Google Scholar
Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Büyükerkmen A, Sari Z. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class I division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:87-93.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobsson SO, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in Angle Class II: 1 case. A roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:174-84.Search in Google Scholar
Bendeus M, Hägg U, Rabie B. Growth and treatment changes in patients treated with a headgear-activator appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:376-84.Search in Google Scholar
Wieslander L, Lagerstrom L. The effect of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1979;75:20-6.Search in Google Scholar
Schaefer AT, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:7-15.Search in Google Scholar
Tumer N, Gultan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:460-8.Search in Google Scholar
Björk A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption. An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod 1972;62:339-83.Search in Google Scholar
Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:159-70.Search in Google Scholar
Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:15-24.Search in Google Scholar
Siara-Olds NJ, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Bayirli B. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances. Angle Orthod 2010;80:18-29.Search in Google Scholar
Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:108-16.Search in Google Scholar
Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on Class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2008;78:361-9.Search in Google Scholar
Casutt C, Pancherz H, Gawora M, Ruf S. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:614-21.Search in Google Scholar
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 Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:607-18.Search in Google Scholar
Kim J, Nielsen IL. A longitudinal study of condylar growth and mandibular rotation in untreated subjects with class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002;72:105-11.Search in Google Scholar
