This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Tripathi T, Singh N, Rai P, Gupta P. Comparison of dentoskeletal changes, esthetic, and functional efficacy of conventional and novel esthetic twin block appliances among Class II growing patients: a pilot study. Turk J Orthod 2020;33:77–84.TripathiTSinghNRaiPGuptaP. Comparison of dentoskeletal changes, esthetic, and functional efficacy of conventional and novel esthetic twin block appliances among Class II growing patients: a pilot study. Turk J Orthod2020;33:77–84.10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19030Search in Google Scholar
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.PancherzH. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod1984;85:125–134.10.1016/0002-9416(84)90004-6Search in Google Scholar
Jacob HB, Buschang PH. Mandibular growth comparisons of Class I and Class II division 1 skeletofacial patterns. Angle Orthod 2014;84:755–761.JacobHBBuschangPH. Mandibular growth comparisons of Class I and Class II division 1 skeletofacial patterns. Angle Orthod2014;84:755–761.10.2319/100113-719.1Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein T, Yoon-Tarlie C. Dental and facial skeletal characteristics and growth of males and females with class II, division 1 malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14 (revisited)-part I: characteristics of size, form, and position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:320–332.RothsteinTYoon-TarlieC. Dental and facial skeletal characteristics and growth of males and females with class II, division 1 malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14 (revisited)-part I: characteristics of size, form, and position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2000;117:320–332.10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70237-XSearch in Google Scholar
Nielsen IL. Is early treatment with functional appliances worth the effort? A discussion of the pros and cons of early interceptive treatment. Iran J Orthod 2017;12:e6410.NielsenIL. Is early treatment with functional appliances worth the effort? A discussion of the pros and cons of early interceptive treatment. Iran J Orthod2017;12:e6410.10.17795/ijo-6410Search in Google Scholar
McNamara JA Jr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981;51:177–202.McNamaraJAJr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod1981;51:177–202.Search in Google Scholar
Martina R, D’Anto V, Chiodini P, Casillo M, Galeotti A, Tagliaferri R. Reproducibility of the assessment of the Frankel manoeuvre for the evaluation of sagittal skeletal discrepancies in Class II individuals. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:409–413.MartinaRD’AntoVChiodiniPCasilloMGaleottiATagliaferriR. Reproducibility of the assessment of the Frankel manoeuvre for the evaluation of sagittal skeletal discrepancies in Class II individuals. Eur J Orthod2016;38:409–413.10.1093/ejo/cjv07226433220Search in Google Scholar
Nijkamp PG, Habets LL, Aartman IH, Zentner A. The influence of cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:630–635.NijkampPGHabetsLLAartmanIHZentnerA. The influence of cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning. Eur J Orthod2008;30:630–635.10.1093/ejo/cjn05918981169Search in Google Scholar
Durao AR, Alqerban A, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Influence of lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 2015;85:206–210.DuraoARAlqerbanAFerreiraAPJacobsR. Influence of lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod2015;85:206–210.10.2319/011214-41.1863187725191839Search in Google Scholar
Devereux L, Moles D, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e175–e181.DevereuxLMolesDCunninghamSJMcKnightM. How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2011;139:e175–e181.10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.09.02121300228Search in Google Scholar
Rischen RJ, Breuning KH, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Records needed for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8:e74186.RischenRJBreuningKHBronkhorstEMKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Records needed for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: a systematic review. PLoS One2013;8:e74186.10.1371/journal.pone.0074186382706124265669Search in Google Scholar
Jarvinen S. An analysis of the variation of the ANB angle: a statistical appraisal. Am J Orthod 1985;87:144–146.JarvinenS. An analysis of the variation of the ANB angle: a statistical appraisal. Am J Orthod1985;87:144–146.10.1016/0002-9416(85)90024-7Search in Google Scholar
Sadat-Khonsari R, Dathe H, Knosel M, Hahn W, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O. Geometric influence of the sagittal and vertical apical base relationship on the ANB angle. J Orofac Orthop 2009;70:152–158.Sadat-KhonsariRDatheHKnoselMHahnWKubein-MeesenburgDBaussO. Geometric influence of the sagittal and vertical apical base relationship on the ANB angle. J Orofac Orthop2009;70:152–158.10.1007/s00056-009-8809-519322533Search in Google Scholar
Anderson G, Fields HW, Beck M, Chacon G, Vig KW. Development of cephalometric norms using a unified facial and dental approach. Angle Orthod 2006;76:612–618.AndersonGFieldsHWBeckMChaconGVigKW. Development of cephalometric norms using a unified facial and dental approach. Angle Orthod2006;76:612–618.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.010Search in Google Scholar
Saxby PJ, Freer TJ. Dentoskeletal determinants of soft tissue morphology. Angle Orthod 1985;55:147–154.SaxbyPJFreerTJ. Dentoskeletal determinants of soft tissue morphology. Angle Orthod1985;55:147–154.Search in Google Scholar
Idris G, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Soft- and hard-tissue changes following treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with Activator versus Trainer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:21–28.IdrisGHajeerMYAl-JundiA. Soft- and hard-tissue changes following treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with Activator versus Trainer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod2019;41:21–28.10.1093/ejo/cjy01429617755Search in Google Scholar
Wijayaratne D, Harkness M, Herbison P. Functional appliance treatment assessed using the PAR index. Aust Orthod J 2000;16:118–126.WijayaratneDHarknessMHerbisonP. Functional appliance treatment assessed using the PAR index. Aust Orthod J2000;16:118–126.Search in Google Scholar
Ma B, Sampson W, Fazzalari N, Wilson D, Wiebkin O. Induced mandibular condylar growth in a sheep model after functional appliance treatment. Aust Orthod J 2001;17:81–88.MaBSampsonWFazzalariNWilsonDWiebkinO. Induced mandibular condylar growth in a sheep model after functional appliance treatment. Aust Orthod J2001;17:81–88.Search in Google Scholar
De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W. Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:458–466.De AlmeidaMRHenriquesJFUrsiW. Comparative study of the Frankel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2002;121:458–466.10.1067/mod.2002.12303712045763Search in Google Scholar
Arash V, Haghanifar S, Sobouti F, Kamel MR, Barzegar K. The effect of two types of functional appliance on soft tissue profile: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Orthod 2010;5:7–15.ArashVHaghanifarSSoboutiFKamelMRBarzegarK. The effect of two types of functional appliance on soft tissue profile: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Orthod2010;5:7–15.Search in Google Scholar
Santamaria-Villegas A, Manrique-Hernandez R, Alvarez-Varela E, Restrepo-Serna C. Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class II with retrognathism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:52.Santamaria-VillegasAManrique-HernandezRAlvarez-VarelaERestrepo-SernaC. Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class II with retrognathism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health2017;17:52.10.1186/s12903-017-0339-8528904928148248Search in Google Scholar
Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. The effects of class II functional appliance treatment are influenced by the masticatory muscle functional capacity. Iran. J Orthod 2018;13:e67036.AntonarakisGSKiliaridisS. The effects of class II functional appliance treatment are influenced by the masticatory muscle functional capacity. Iran. J Orthod2018;13:e67036.10.5812/ijo.67036Search in Google Scholar
Showkatbakhsh R, Castaldo MI, Jamilian A, Padricelli G, Fahimi Hanzayi M, Cappabianca S. Treatment effects of R-appliance and Frankel-2 in Class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14:17–22.ShowkatbakhshRCastaldoMIJamilianAPadricelliGFahimi HanzayiMCappabiancaS. Treatment effects of R-appliance and Frankel-2 in Class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Paediatr Dent2013;14:17–22.Search in Google Scholar
Freeman DC, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Frankel C. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Frankel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:570.e1–6; discussion 70-1.FreemanDCMcNamaraJAJrBaccettiTFranchiLFrankelC. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Frankel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2009;135:570.e1–6; discussion 70-1.10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.02919409337Search in Google Scholar
Martina S, Di Stefano ML, Paduano FP, Aiello D, Valletta R, Paduano S. Evaluation of profile changes in Class II individuals treated by means of herbst miniscope appliance. Dent J (Basel) 2020;8:27.MartinaSDi StefanoMLPaduanoFPAielloDVallettaRPaduanoS. Evaluation of profile changes in Class II individuals treated by means of herbst miniscope appliance. Dent J (Basel)2020;8:27.10.3390/dj8010027717530132244893Search in Google Scholar
Bilgic F, Gelgor IE, Celebi AA. Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in central Anatolian adolescents compared to European and other nations’ adolescents. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:75–81.BilgicFGelgorIECelebiAA. Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in central Anatolian adolescents compared to European and other nations’ adolescents. Dental Press J Orthod2015;20:75–81.10.1590/2177-6709.20.6.075-081.oar468674826691973Search in Google Scholar
Han UK, Kim YH. Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:538–545.HanUKKimYH. Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1998;113:538–545.10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70265-3Search in Google Scholar
Rongo R, Bucci R, Adaimo R, Amato M, Martina S, Valletta R. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional Fränkel Manoeuvre: a reproducibility study. Eur J Orthod 2020;42:157–162.RongoRBucciRAdaimoRAmatoMMartinaSVallettaR. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional Fränkel Manoeuvre: a reproducibility study. Eur J Orthod2020;42:157–162.10.1093/ejo/cjz08131724700Search in Google Scholar
Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 1999;2:49–52.AckermanJLProffitWRSarverDM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res1999;2:49–52.10.1111/ocr.1999.2.2.4910534979Search in Google Scholar
