Die Herbst-Apparatur. Hans Pancherz

during Herbst treatment, Part 2. Results and conclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:13–29

14.McNamara JA. Functional Adaptations in the Temporomandibular Joint. Dental Clinic North America 1975;19:457.

15.Andresen V, Häupl k, Petrik L. Funktionskieferorthopdie, 6. umgearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage von K. Häupl und Petrik, 1957. München: JA Barth, 1957.

16.Herren P. The activator´s mode of action. Am J Orthod 1959; 45:512–527.

17.Pancherz H. Schrittweises Bite Jumping bis zum frontalen Kreuzbiss bei der Herbst-Behandlung. Kieferorthopädie 2016;30: 135–140.

18.Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A Cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982;82:104–113.

19.Du X, Hägg U, Rabie AB. Effects of Headgear-Herbst and mandibular step-by-stepadvancement vs conventional Herbst appliance and maximal bite jumping. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:167–174.

20.Rabie ABM, Tsai M-LM, Hägg U,Du X, Chou B-W. The correlatin on replicating cells and osteogenesis in the condyle during stepwise advancement. Anfle Orthod 2003;73:457–466.

      21.Leung FYC, Rabie ABM, Hägg U. Neovascularisation and bone formation in the condyle during stepwise mandibular advancement. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:137–141.

22.Shum L, Rabie ABM, Hägg U. Vascular endothelial growth factor expressionand bone formation in posterior glenoid fossa during stepwise mandibular advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004;125:185–190.

23.Luder HU. Effects of activator treatment – evidence of the occurrence of two different types of reaction. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:205–225.

      24.Birkebaeck L, Melsen B, Terp S. A laminagraphic study of the alterations in the temporomandibuar joint following activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:267–276.

      25.Öztürk Y, Tankuter N. Class II: a comparison of activator and activator headgear combination appliances. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:149–157.

      26.Ruf S, Baltromejus S, Pancherz H. Effective Condylar Growth and Chinj Position Changes in Activator Treatment: A Cephalometric Roentgenographic Study. Angle Orthod 2001;71:4–11.

27.Türkkahraman H, Sayin MÖ. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:27–34.

28.Björk A. The principle of the Andresen method of orthodontic treatment: a discussion based on cephalometric x-say analysis of treated cases. Am J Orthod 1951;37:437–458.

      29.Jakobsson SO. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1967;53: 446–457.

      30.Harvold EP, Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1971;60:478–490.

      31.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.

      32.Jakobsson SO, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in angle Class II:1 cases: a roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:174–184.

33.Basciftci FA Ysal T, Büyükermen A, Sari Z. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:87–93.

34.Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1984;86:1–13.

      35.Wieslander L. Long-term effects of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993; 104:319–329.

      36.McNamara JA Jr, Howe RP, Dischinger TG. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98:134–144.

37.Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:375–388.

38.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 Dentofac Orthop 1999;115:607–618.

39.De Almeida MR, Henrriques JF, de Almeida RR et al. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2005:75:540–547.

40.Peterson JE, McNamara JA Jr. Temporomandibular joint Adapotations Associated with Herbst Appliance Treatment in Juvenile Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Semin Orthodont 2003;9:12–25.

41.Pancherz H. Wenn der Aktivator versagt – was tun? Kieferorthopädie 2016;30:19–26.

2

       Wenn der Aktivator versagt – was tun?

      Einleitung

Eine kieferorthopädische Behandlung des Distalbisses (Klasse II:1) im Wechselgebiss wird vorzugsweise mit einem abnehmbaren FKO-Gerät, wie zum Beispiel dem Aktivator, dem Bionator, der Fränkel-Apparatur oder dem Twin-Block durchgeführt. Von diesen abnehmbaren FKO-Geräten ist der Aktivator das älteste und bekannteste Gerät. Bei guter Patientenmitarbeit und Einhaltung gewisser Grundvoraussetzungen (Nasenatmung, Schlafstellung mit geschlossenem Mund, horizontales Kieferwachstum) sind die Behandlungsergebnisse sehr gut (Abb. 1).