REVIEW
Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:(3)173-178
Current concepts on functional appliances and
m andibular growth stim ulation
A. R. C ollett*
Abstract
The mode of action of functional appliances,
particularly in relation to stimulating mandibular
growth, is a controversial subject. Many of the
reports concerning growth effects of functional
appliances have been characterized by poor
methodology. In assessing functional appliances,
results from prospective randomized clinical trials
should be given prominence. On the basis of
available evidence, it cannot be concluded that
functional appliances are effective in stimulating
and increasing mandibular growth in the long term.
Although favourable growth changes have been
reported following phase 1 therapy, they are
generally not substantial and long term stability
appears to be poor.
Key words: Class II treatment, dentofacial orthopaedics,
functional appliance, mandibular growth.
(Received for publication August 1999. Revised March
2000. Accepted March 2000.)
Introduction
F unctional appliances have becom e part of
contemporary orthodontic practice, however, their
mode of action is still controversial. T he ability of
functional appliances to reduce overjets by means of
modifying dental relationships (incisor angulation
and position) is not in dispute. T he controversy
surrounds the ability of the appliances to increase
mandibular growth, and thus result in a long-term
change in the skeletal pattern. T he mandibular
growth aspect is of particular interest as most skeletal
C lass II patterns have as their main component
mandibular retrognathia. 1 C ephalometric landmarks
used in mandibular growth analysis are shown in
Fig. 1.
M uch of the earlier literature relating to functional
appliances has been criticized on the basis of
scientific methodology. 2 Tulloch et al. 2 stated there
are many examples in the health sciences where
opinions based on the observation of a few patients
or studies that used relatively weak design have been
*Orthodontist.
Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3.
responsible for suggesting spurious associations and
promoting useless treatments. It should be borne in
mind that the path to introducing a new drug into
the market place involves a prospective randomized
clinical trial. 3,4 Yet, for many years, the orthodontic
profession has accepted certain claims regarding the
clinical efficacy of appliances, in the absence of any
scientific evidence. A very unflattering observation
was made by Johnston 5 who wrote: N o biological
basis? N o evidence? N o matter. Facial growth, surely
one of the most complex of all biological processes,
is now thought to have yielded without a struggle
and in some unknown way to the ministrations of
small, eponymous pieces of plastic. Sackett, 6 an
epidem iologist who assessed the orthodontic
literature for scientific validity, wrote in 1986 . . . in
terms of the number of published randomized trials,
orthodontics was behind such treatment modalities
as acupuncture, hypnosis, hom eopathy, and
orthomolecular therapy and on a par with
scientology . . .. M ore recently, in 1995, Sackett 7
noted the increase in randomized trials in orthodontics
and applauded the move to evidence-based
orthodontics. Although Sackett 6,7 has argued for
acceptance of the randomized clinical trial, others
have proposed alternative approaches to research,
largely due to the cost of randomized trials as well as
their labour intensive and time consuming nature. 8,9
H owever, there is overall agreement the randomized
trial is the best method for minimizing biases and
detecting differences between treatments.
P revious studies
In the 1970s and 80s there was an increase in the
numbers of papers published in refereed journals
supporting functional appliance stim ulated
mandibular growth.
T he question of whether the effect of mandibular
forward positioning appliances in increasing
mandibular growth in animal studies10-13 can be
reproduced in humans has been widely addressed by
m any, with inconsistent findings. F unctional
173
 Fig. 2. M odified Bionator type appliance. H eadgear tubes allow
application of extra-oral traction.

Fig. 3. Teuscher appliance. N ote the characteristic anterior

torquing springs which are adjusted to minimize upper incisor
Fig. 1. C ephalometric landmarks used for mandibular growth proclination.
analysis. Ar-articulare; C o-condylion; G n-gnathion; N -nasion; Po
pogonion; S-sella.

appliances are varied and diverse in design (Table 1,

Fig. 2-5) with their proponents often having a
proprietary interest in the appliance. C laims as to
the efficacy of the appliances by clinicians with a
financial interest should be treated with caution.
Presentations which consist of carefully chosen cases
may not necessarily reflect the actual results seen
over a large num ber of consecutively treated
Fig. 4. Frankel FR-2 appliance.
patients. It is attractive to believe in functional
appliance stim ulated growth for, as Johnston 14
poor methodology (Table 2), or are simply anecdotal
noted, it is a very good idea and also has the
case reports. 2 T he problem has been recognized and
advantage of removing some of the decision making
acknowledged by the profession, with steps taken to
in treatment planning if all C lass II cases can be
rectify the situation. When assessing the effects of
treated the same way.
appliances, the hierarchy of evidence shown in Table
M any of the reports concerning growth effects of 3 should be borne in mind. C ase reports, although at
functional appliances have been characterized by the lower end of the hierarchy, do serve a useful
purpose. C ase reports may identify a possible effect
Table 1. Examples of various functional (or adverse effect) of a therapy, and a body of such
appliances
Andresen Activator
Bass appliance Table 2. Common problems with clinical
Bionator (and variants)
Elastic Bite-block research studies concerning growth effects
Elastic Open Activator of functional appliances
Frankel FR-2 Functional Regulator
H arvold Activator C onclusions from isolated cases
H erbst appliance Lack of suitable controls
H erren Activator C ompliance measurement
M odified Bionator Inadequate sampling
Orthopaedic corrector (1 and 2) Retrospective observations
Stockli Type Activator D ata measurement and evaluation
Robin M onobloc D etecting minimal changes
Teuscher appliance Biological variation
Twin Block Experimental versus clinical significance
Woodside Type Activator Lack of long-term studies

174 Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3.

Table 3. Hierarchy of clinical evidence for
assessment of the effects of functional
appliances
Prospective randomized clinical trial
Prospective study non-random
Retrospective study pretreatment selection criteria
Retrospective study post-treatment selection criteria
C ase report
Opinion of expert
reports provokes further investigation. N umerous
case reports do not constitute definitive evidence
and a well conducted prospective random ized
clinical trial(s) must be given a higher ranking. A
notable shortcoming of clinical retrospective studies
is the selection of only those patients who completed
treatment. 15-19 C linicians do not generally persist
with treatment that is not producing the desired
response. It is easy to assume a lack of cooperation,
however, it is also possible the appliance had no
significant therapeutic effect and the study simply
selected patients experiencing favourable growth.
Table 4 lists papers which are representative of
studies concerning functional appliances. T his table is
not intended to be all-inclusive, but rather an example
of what has been published over the last 30 years.
Mandibular growth
While some reports in the literature conclude that
functional appliances are effective in increasing
mandibular length, 2,20-29 other studies have concluded
that functional appliances do not affect mandibular
growth. 30-36 T he studies reporting a positive effect on
m andibular growth still leave this question
unanswered due to characteristics such as lack of a
control group, 21,27 clinically minimal effects20 and
patients being retained with a mandibular positioning
appliance. 20,25
T he clinical significance of a measured increase in
mandibular length needs to be considered in terms
of forward chin positioning. T he increase in length
may be negated by clockwise mandibular rotation.
For example, in the studies of M cN amara et al., 22-24
despite giving an increase in mandibular length, the
Frankel appliance did not increase anterior chin
projection compared with the control, although the
H erbst appliance did demonstrate this effect. 24

Table 4. Representative studies 1967-1998 concerning functional appliances

C itation Reference N umber C omments

Adenwalla and Kronman, 1985 53 Retrospective; FR versus edgewise

Bishara and Ziaja, 1989 28 Review
C reekmore and Radney, 1983 32 Retrospective; successfully treated malocclusions
D erringer, 1990 15 Retrospective; Andresen, successful cases studied
D eVincenzo, 1991 18 Retrospective; successful cases studied
D rage and H unt, 1990 31 Retrospective; successful cases, relapse studied
Erverdi and Ozkan, 1995 20 Elastic bite-blocks, retention with Bionator
Fidler et al., 1995 16 Retrospective; successful cases studied
G hafari et al., 1998 21 Prospective randomized clinical trial; no control group
G ianelly et al., 1984 54 Retrospective; compliant cases
Illing et al., 1998 46 C linical trial; Bass, Bionator, Twin Block
Jakobsson, 1967 30 Prospective randomized study; Activator
Johnston, 1999 5 Review
Johnston, 1996 14 Review
Johnston, 1986 55 Retrospective; Bionator, Activator, Sagittal appliance
Keeling et al., 1995, 1998 47, 48 Prospective clinical trial
Lai and M cN amara, 1998 38 Retrospective; H erbst appliance
Lange et al., 1995 17 Retrospective; successfully treated cases, Bionator
Livieratos and Johnston, 19?? 56 Two phase therapy versus phase 1 therapy
Lund and Sandler, 1998 45 Prospective studies, not randomized; Twin Blocks
M amandras and Allen, 1990 19 Retrospective; successful cases, Bionator
M cN amara, 1985 11 FR-2, cooperative patients
M cN amara et al., 1985 22 Retrospective; FR-2
M cN amara et al., 1990 23 Retrospective radiographic study; FR-2 , H erbst
M cN amara et al., 1996 24 Retrospective study; FR-2
M ills and M cC ulloch, 1998 44 Prospective radiographic study; Twin Blocks
N elson et al., 1993 33 Prospective, randomized; FR, H arvold and control groups
Pancherz et al., 1979, 1990, 1991, 1997 37, 39-42 H erbst appliance effects and long-term follow-up
Perillo et al., 1996 25 Retrospective; some cases retained with Activator
Righellis, 1983 26 Retrospective; successfully treated to molar C lass I
Robertson, 1983 34 Prospective; FR-2, emphasized need for RC T
Rudzki-Janson and N oachtar, 1998 35 Initial prospective study with post-retention follow-up
Tulloch et al., 1990 2 Review
Tulloch et al., 1995, 1997, 1998 49-52 Prospective randomized clinical trial
Tuncay and Tulloch, 1992 29 Review
Weiland et al., 1997 27 Retrospective; radiographic study
Wieslander, 1993 43 Retrospective; available post-retention records analysed
Wieslander and Largerstrom, 1979 36 Patient sample compared with retrospective control group

Increased weighting should be given to prospective randomized clinical trials.

Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3. 175

Fig. 5. Twin Block appliance.
Also, initial mandibular changes need to be
evaluated carefully. Johnston 5,14 has suggested that
what may be interpreted as growth in fact amounts
to mandibular displacement or a combination of the
two. In addition, analyses that rely on the measure-
m ent articulare 15,18 are unable to discrim inate
between growth and displacement.
Full- tim e functional appliance wear
D oes the lack of appreciable growth in some
studies relate to a lack of full-time use? One variant
of the functional appliance that is worn for 24 hours
is the H erbst appliance. M any of the reports relating
effects of the H erbst appliance have been authored
by Pancherz. Pancherz37 initially claim ed the
appliance increased mandibular growth and an
associated increase in the SN B angle was noted.
U nfortunately, the long-term results were not so
encouraging. 38-43 Subsequently, Pancherz concluded
that the inherent morphogenetic pattern dominates
over the treatment procedure. 41
Twin Blocks are also promoted as virtually full-
time wear appliances. Results from Twin Block
studies are inconclusive. While short-term data 44
have suggested increased chin projection with the
appliance, other studies have been unable to
demonstrate this effect. 45,46
Mandibular growth and results of prospective
random ized clinical trials
Illing et al., 46 Keeling et al. 47,48 and the U niversity of
N orth C arolina (U N C ) 49-52 have recently undertaken
prospective randomized clinical trials of C lass II
appliances. A randomized clinical trial has also been
conducted by G hafari et al., 21 however, their lack of
a control group is a drawback. An earlier prospective
study was conducted by Jakobsson 30 and, as
mentioned above, the conclusion was that activators
do not bring about an increase in mandibular growth.
Tulloch et al. 50 concluded on the basis of the U N C
two-phase randomized trial that early treatment
(phase 1) followed by later comprehensive treatment
(phase 2), on average, does not produce major
176
differences in the jaw relationship or dental
occlusion, compared with later one-stage treatment.
T he U N C group also attempted to objectively
measure compliance by incorporating timing devices
into some of the appliances. Although favourable
skeletal changes were noted in the functional
appliance group following phase 1 therapy, the
changes were not maintained. T his finding agrees
with previous studies that also failed to demonstrate
any benefits in terms of skeletal change with early
phase 1 therapy. 53-56 Johnston 5 reduced this debate to
the sim ple statem ent: Absent a ponderable
difference in outcome, the inescapable fact that a
two year treatment is three years faster than a five
year treatment may speak for itself.
T he study of Keeling et al. 48 concurred with that of
Tulloch et al. 50 in that functional appliances brought
about some favourable skeletal change following
phase 1 treatment. T he change in mandibular length
was greater in the functional group than the control
and amounted to a little less than 1 mm per year. In
Keelings study the changes appeared to be stable 12
months after therapy, although further long-term
(and post-phase 2) data have yet to be collected.
T he clinical trial of Illing et al. 46 also lacks long-
term data. T he trial examined the responses to
treatment with Bass, Bionator and Twin Block
appliances. T he treatm ent and control groups
consisted of patients with mandibular retrusion and
an AN B angle of greater than 6. Of the three
appliances, the Bionator and Twin Block gave an
increase in m andibular length (or m andibular
displacem ent), as m easured from articulare to
gnathion, compared with the control. H owever, the
effect on the profile seemed to be negated by an
increase in facial height. Also, only the Bionator
recorded a significant increase in mandibular length
as measured from condylion to gnathion. N one of
the appliances were successful in increasing either
the SN B angle or the forward projection of pogonion,
compared with the control group.
Length of treatm ent
In cases where functional appliances are utilized,
the patient usually requires further detailing with
fixed appliances. 57 Although early functional
appliance therapy has been reported to decrease the
time in fixed appliances (phase 2), the total treat-
ment time is generally increased over that for fixed
appliances only. 50,56,58
Maxillary restraint
A restraining effect on the maxilla has also been
reported with use of functional appliances. 30,38,44 Of
course, maxillary change is generally measured to A
point, which is a dento-alveolar landmark rather
than true skeletal point. T hus, observed maxillary
restraint does not necessarily reflect skeletal
Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3.
modification. In various prospective studies45,46,48,50
such an effect on the m axilla could not be
demonstrated. A similar negative outcome was
observed in a follow-up of patients treated with the
H erbst appliance. 41 In the study of Livieratos and
Johnston, 56 headgear treated patients were found to
have undergone more maxillary change, while those
treated with a Bionator dem onstrated m ore
mandibular change (growth or displacement) after
phase 1 therapy. H owever, these changes were no
longer evident at the completion of phase 2 fixed
appliance therapy. As Johnston 5 noted, regardless of
the appliance a common outcome is likely, implying
a common mechanism. T he prime candidate is
normal facial growth.
Clinical applications
In terms of practical clinical applications, a lack of
significant skeletal change with functional appliances
does not diminish their use in correcting overjets.
T he appliance is still a useful orthodontic tool for
correcting C lass II malocclusions, although not
unique in this regard. O f relevance are the
concluding remarks of Livieratos and Johnston, 56
who wrote: We suspect that the decision to use
functional appliances is fundamentally a practice-
management problem . . . Recent findings underpin
the importance of correct diagnosis and being able
to differentiate between the skeletal and dental
components of a malocclusion. For a patient who
has a severe retrognathic profile with a deficient chin
where surgery may be required, the use of a
functional appliance is unlikely to change the long-
term surgical needs. H owever, in m any cases
favourable profile changes can occur. T he overall
facial profile is the result of skeletal, dental and soft
tissue contributions. Improving dental relationships
may result in an improved profile due to more
favourable soft tissue drape. For example, consider
the patient with a C lass II division 1 pattern with a
large overjet and lower lip habit (the lower lip at rest
being positioned behind the upper labial segment).
Reduction of the overjet can result in a substantial
improvement in facial aesthetics, without altering
the skeletal base relationship. After reduction of the
overjet, the lower lip can rest and function in front of
the upper teeth.
Conclusion
On the basis of available evidence, it cannot be
concluded that functional appliances are effective in
stim ulating and increasing m andibular growth.
D espite claim s to the contrar y, the superior
functional appliance has yet to be demonstrated.
Although favourable growth changes have been
reported following phase 1 therapy, they are generally
not substantial and long-term stability appears to be
poor. T he positive reports as to functional appliance
stimulated growth show only minor improvements
Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3.
in anterior chin positioning, indicating that these
appliances do not provide an option to surgery in
severe C lass II cases. Evidence suggests the modest
skeletal changes revert with time. In assessing
functional appliances, results from prospective
random ized clinical trials should be given
prominence.
References
1. N gan PW, Byczek E, Scheick J. Longitudinal evaluation of
growth changes in C lass II division 1 subjects. Semin Orthod
1997;3:222-231.
2. Tulloch JF, M edland W, Tuncay OC . M ethods used to evaluate
growth modification in C lass II malocclusion. Am J Orthod
D entofacial Orthop 1990;98:340-347.
3. N ies AS, Spielberg SP. Principles of therapeutics. In: H ardman
JG , Limbird LE, M olinoff PB, Ruddon RW, G ilman AG , eds.
G oodm an and G ilm ans the pharm acological basis of
therapeutics. 9th edn. N ew York: M cG raw-H ill, 1996:43-62.
4. Sackett D L. On identifying the best therapy. In: Trotman C -A,
M cN amara JA Jr, eds. Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and
effectiveness. Volume 30: C raniofacial growth series. Ann Arbor:
T he U niversity of M ichigan, 1995:7-19.
5. Johnston LE Jr. G rowing jaws for fun and profit: A modest
proposal. In: M cN amara JA Jr, ed. G rowth modification: What
works, what doesnt, and why. Volume 25: C raniofacial growth
series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan, 1999:63-86.
6. Sackett D L. T he science of the art of clinical management. In:
Vig PS, Ribbens KA, eds. Science and clinical judgement in
orthodontics. M onograph 19: C raniofacial growth series. Ann
Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan, 1986:237-251.
7. Sackett D L. N ine years later: A commentary on revisiting the
M oyers symposium. In: Trotman C -A, M cN amara JA Jr, eds.
Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Volume 30:
C raniofacial growth series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of
M ichigan, 1995:1-5.
8. Johnston LE Jr. C linical studies in orthodontics: Taking the low
road to Scotland. In: Trotman C -A, M cN amara JA Jr, eds.
Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Volume 30:
C raniofacial growth series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of
M ichigan, 1995:21-41.
9. Vig WL, Bennett M E, OBrien K, Vayda D, Vig PS, Weyant RJ.
Orthodontic process and outcome: Efficacy and effectiveness
studies. In: Trotman C -A, M cN amara JA Jr, eds. Orthodontic
treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Volume 30: C raniofacial
growth series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan,
1995:227-254.
10. M cN amara JA Jr. N euromuscular and skeletal adaptations to
altered function in the orofacial region. Am J O rthod
1973;64:578-606.
11. M cN am ara JA Jr. T he role of functional appliances in
contemporary orthodontics. In: Johnston LE Jr, ed. N ew vistas
in orthodontics. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1985:38-75.
12. M cN amara JA Jr. On the possibilities of stimulating mandibular
growth. In: G raber LW, ed. Orthodontics: State of the art,
essence of the science. St Louis: M osby, 1986.
13. Petrovic AG , Stutzmann JJ, Lavergne JM . M echanisms of
craniofacial growth and modus operandi of functional appliances:
A cell-level and cybernetic approach to orthodontic decision
making. In: C arlson D S, ed. C raniofacial growth theory and
orthodontic treatment. M onograph 23: C raniofacial growth
series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan, 1990:13-74.
14. Johnston LE Jr. F unctional appliances: A m ortgage on
mandibular position. Aust Orthod J 1996;14:154-157.
15. D erringer K. A cephalometric study to compare the effects of
cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of C lass
II division 1 malocclusion. Part 1 Skeletal changes. Br J Orthod
1990;17:33-46.
16. Fidler BC , Artun J, Joondeph D R, Little RM . Long-term
stability of Angle C lass II, division 1 malocclusions with success-
ful occlusal results at end of active treatment. Am J Orthod
D entofacial Orthop 1995;107:276-285.
177
17. Lange DW, Kalra V, Broadbent BH Jr, Powers M , N elson S.
C hanges in soft tissue profile following treatment with the
Bionator. Angle Orthod 1995;65:423-430.
18. D eVincenzo JP. C hanges in mandibular length before, during
and after successful orthopedic correction of C lass II
malocclusions, using a functional appliance. Am J O rthod
D entofacial Orthop 1991;99:241-257.
19. M amandras AH , Allen LP. M andibular response to orthodontic
treatment with the Bionator appliance. Am J Orthod D entofacial
Orthop 1990;97:113-120.
20. Erverdi N , Ozkan G. A cephalometric investigation of effects of
the Elastic Bite-Block in the treatment of C lass II division 1
malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:375-384.
21. G hafari J, Shofer FS, Jacobsson-H unt U, M arkowitz D L, Laster
LL. H eadgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of
C lass II, division 1 malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial. Am
J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1998;113:51-61.
22. M cN amara JA, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy T G. Skeletal and
dental changes following functional regular therapy on C lass II
patients. Am J Orthod 1985;88:91-110.
23. M cN amara JA Jr, H oweRP, D ischinger T G. A comparison of the
H erbst and Frankel appliances in the treatment of C lass II
malocclusion. Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1990;98:134-
144.
24. M cN amara JA, Peterson JE, Alexander RG. T hree dimensional
diagnosis and management of C lass II malocclusion in the mixed
dentition. Semin Orthod 1996;2:114-137.
25. Perillo L, Johnston LE, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes
after function regulator (F R2) treatment of patients with
retrusive C lass II malocclusions. Am J Orthod D entofacial
Orthop 1996;109:132-139.
26. Righellis EG. Treatment effects of Frankel, activator and extra-
oral traction appliances. Angle Orthod 1983;53:107-121.
27. Weiland FJ, Ingervall B, Bantleon H -P, D roschl H . Initial effects
of treatment of C lass II malocclusion with the H erren activator,
activator-headgear combination, and Jasper Jumper. Am J
Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1997;112:19-27.
28. Bishara SE, Ziaja RR. Functional appliances: A review. Am J
Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1989;95:250-258.
29. Tuncay OC , Tulloch JFC . Apparatus criticus: methods used to
evaluate growth modification in C lass II malocclusion. Am J
Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1992;102:531-536.
30. Jakobsson SO. C ephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on
C lass II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1967;53:446-
457.
31. D rage KJ, H unt N P. O verjet relapse following functional
appliance therapy. Br J Orthod 1990;17:205-213.
32. C reekm ore T D , Radney LJ. F rankel appliance therapy:
Orthopedic or orthodontic? Am J Orthod 1983;83:89-108.
33. N elson M , H arkness P, H erbison P. M andibular changes during
functional appliance treatm ent. Am J O rthod D entofacial
Orthop 1993;104:153-161.
34. Robertson N RE. An examination of treatment changes in
children treated with the functional regulator of Frankel. Am J
Orthod 1983;83:299-310.
35. Rudzki-Janson I, N oachtar R. Functional appliance therapy with
the Bionator. Semin Orthod 1998;4:33-45.
36. Wieslander L, Largerstrom L. T he effect of activator treatment
on C lass II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1979;75:20-26.
37. Pancherz H . Treatment of C lass II malocclusions by jumping the
bite with the H erbst appliance: A cephalometric investigation.
Am J Orthod 1979;76:423-441.
38. Lai M , M cN amara JA Jr. An evaluation of two-phase treatment
with the H erbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy.
Semin Orthod 1998;4:46-58.
39. H ansen K, Pancherz H , H agg U. Long-term effects of the H erbst
appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalo-
metric study. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:471-481.
40. Pancherz H . T he nature of C lass II relapse after H erbst appliance
treatm ent: A cephalom etric long-term investigation. Am J
Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1991;100:220-233.
178
41. Pancherz H . T he effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial
adaptations to treatment with the H erbst appliance. Semin
Orthod 1997;3:232-243.
42. Pancherz H , Fackel U. T he skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and
post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of class II
malocclusions treated with the H erbst appliance. Eur J Orthod
1990;12:209-218.
43. Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-
H erbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or
relapse? Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1993;104:319-329.
44. M ills C M , M cC ulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block
appliance: A cephalometric study. Am J Orthod D entofacial
Orthop 1998;114:15-24.
45. Lund D L, Sandler PJ. T he effects of twin blocks: A prospective
controlled study. Am J O rthod D entofacial O rthop
1998;113:104-110.
46. Illing H M , M orris D O, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass,
Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I the hard tissues.
Eur J Orthod 1998;20:501-516.
47. Keeling SD, King G J, Wheeler T T, M cG orray S. T iming of C lass
II treatment: Rationale, methods and early results of an ongoing
randomized clinical trial. In: Trotman C -A, M cN amara JA Jr,
eds. Orthodontic treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Volume
30: C raniofacial growth series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of
M ichigan, 1995:81-112.
48. Keeling SD, Wheeler T T, King G J, et al. Anteroposterior skeletal
and dental changes after early C lass II treatment with Bionators
and headgear. Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1998;113:40-
50.
49. Tulloch JFC , Phillips C , Proffit W. Early vs late treatment of
C lass II malocclusion: Preliminary results from the U N C clinical
trial. In: Trotman C -A, M cN amara JA Jr, eds. Orthodontic
treatment: Outcome and effectiveness. Volume 30: C raniofacial
growth series. Ann Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan,
1995:113-138.
50. Tulloch JFC , Phillips C , Proffit WR. Benefit of early C lass II
treatment: Progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical
trial. Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1998;113:62-72.
51. Tulloch JFC , Proffit WR, Phillips C . Influences on the outcome
of early treatment for C lass II malocclusion. Am J Orthod
D entofacial Orthop 1997;111:533-542.
52. Tulloch JFC , Phillips C , Koch G , Proffit WR. T he effect of early
intervention on skeletal pattern in C lass II malocclusion: A
randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop
1997;111:391-400.
53. Adenwalla ST, Kronman JH . C lass II division 1 treatment with
F rankel and edgewise appliances. A comparative study of
m andibular growth and facial esthetics. Angle O rthod
1985;55:281-298.
54. G ianelly AA, Arena SA, Bernstein L. A comparison of C lass II
treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise and
Frankel appliances. Am J Orthod 1984;86:269-276.
55. Johnston LE Jr. A comparative analysis of C lass II treatments. In:
Vig PS, Ribbens KA, eds. Science and clinical judgement in
orthodontics. M onograph 19: C raniofacial growth series. Ann
Arbor: T he U niversity of M ichigan, 1986:103-148.
56. Livieratos FA, Johnston LE Jr. A comparison of one-stage and
two-stage nonextraction alternatives in m atched C lass II
samples. Am J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1995;108:118-131.
57. Bondevik O. Treatment needs following activator-headgear
therapy. Angle Orthod 1995;65:417-422.
58. OBrien KD, Robbins R, Vig KWL, Vig PS, Shnorhokian H ,
Weyant R. T he effectiveness of C lass II, division 1 treatment. Am
J Orthod D entofacial Orthop 1995;107:329-334.
A ddress for correspondence/reprints:
D r A. R. C ollett,
7 D awson Street,
U pper Ferntree G ully, Victoria 3156.
Australian Dental Journal 2000;45:3.