This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Herbst E. Atlas und Grundriss der Zahnärtlichen Orthopädie, München: Lehmann Verlag, 1910: 311–15.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalo-metric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979; 76: 423–42.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance - its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod 1985; 87: 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H, Hansen K. Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10: 149–64.Search in Google Scholar
McNamara JA, Howe RP. Clinical management of the acrylic splint Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 1988: 94: 142–9.Search in Google Scholar
Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II mal-occlusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 1–13.Search in Google Scholar
Tse ELK. A comparative study of the skeletal and dental effects of a modified Herbst and the traditional Herbst appliances in southern Chinese. A prospective cephalo-metric study. Master’s thesis, University of Hong Kong 1994: 149–254.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance. Sevilla: Editorial Aguiram, 1995: 7–20.Search in Google Scholar
Du X, Hägg U, Rabie ABM. Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximum jumping of the mandible. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24: 167–74.Search in Google Scholar
Wolf U. Effekte der Herbst appartur. Eine verglleichende studie zweier konstruktionsformen. Inaugural Thesis, University of Giessen, 1994: 1–123.Search in Google Scholar
Björk A. The face in profile. An anthropological x-ray investigation on Swedish children and conscripts. Svensk Tandläkare-Tidskrift, Berlingska Boktryckeriet - Lund, 1947: 40(5B): 180.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 104–13.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H. Vertical dentofacial changes during Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Swed Dent J 1982; Suppl. 15: 189–96.Search in Google Scholar
Lau JWP, Hägg U. Cephalometric morphology of southern Chinese children with Class II Division 1 mal-occlusion. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 188–90.Search in Google Scholar
McNamara JA. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8 to 10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177–202.Search in Google Scholar
Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B. Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 mal-occlusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 111–20.Search in Google Scholar
Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes, and lines used in cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod 1966; 52: 637–51.Search in Google Scholar
Tng TTH, Chan TCK, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 110–20.Search in Google Scholar
Wong GWK, So LLY, Hägg U. A comparative study of sagittal correction with the Herbst appliance in two different ethnic groups. Eur J Orthod 1997, 19: 195–204.Search in Google Scholar
Lau YW, Cooke MS, Hägg U. Comparative cephalometric errors for orthodontic and surgical patients. J Adult Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, 1995; 10: 119–26.Search in Google Scholar
Hägg U, Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopedics in relation to chronological age, growth period and skeletal development. An analysis of 72 male patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10: 169–76.Search in Google Scholar
