Absolute distal movement of upper first molars together with distal tipping, but no significant extrusion, occurred with cervical traction. Distal movement of the maxillary first molars was more stable in the group where maxillary 2nd molars had been extracted.
With Andresen treatment a restraining effect took place on the upper molars, while mesial movement of the lower first molars contributed to correction of the molar relationship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlgrenJ. and LaurinC. (1976) Late results of activator treatment: a cephalometric study, British Journal of Orthodontics, 3, 181–187.
2.
AnderssonI. and AhlgrenJ. (1977) Vertical growth changes during and after activator treatment, Transactions of the European Orthodontic Society, 57–67.
3.
ArmstrongM. (1971) Controlling the magnitude, direction and duration of extra oral force. American Journal of Orthodontics, 59, 217–243.
4.
BartonJ. J. (1972) High pull headgear versus cervical traction. A cephalometric comparison. American Journal of Orthodontics, 63, 517–529.
5.
BaumrindS., MolthenR., WestE. E. and MillerD. M. (1979) Distal displacement of the maxilla and the upper first molar, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 630–640.
6.
BernsteinL., UlbrichR. W. and GianellyA. A. (1977) Orthopaedics versus orthodontics in class II treatment. An implant study, American Journal of Orthodontics, 72, 549–558.
7.
CalvertF. J. (1982) An assessment of Andresen therapy on class II division malocclusions, British Journal of Orthodontics, 9, 149–153.
8.
CreekmoreT. D. (1967) Inhibition or stimulation of vertical growth of the facial complex and its significance to treatment, Angle Orthodontist, 37, 285–297.
9.
DerringerK. (1990) A cephalometric study to compare the effects of cervical traction and Andresen therapy in the treatment of class II division I malocclusion. Part I—Skeletal changes, British Journal of Orthodontics, 17, 33–46.
10.
GraberT. M. (1955) Extra oral force—facts and fallacies, American Journal of Orthodontics, 41, 690–705.
11.
GregorakW. (1962) The eruption path of permanent maxillary molars in class II division I malocclusion using headgear, American Journal of Orthodontics, 48, 367–380.
12.
HarvoldE. P. and VargervikK. (1971) Morphogenetic response to activator treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 60, 478–490.
13.
JakobssonS. O. (1967) Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on class II division I malocclusion, American Journal of Orthodontics, 53, 446–457.
14.
KingE. W. (1957) Cervical anchorage in class II division I treatment. A cephalometric approach, Angle Orthodontist, 27, 98–104.
15.
KleinP. L. (1957) An evaluation of cervical traction on the maxilla and the upper first permanent molar, Angle Orthodontist, 27, 61–68.
16.
MeachC. L. (1966) A cephalometric comparison of bony profile changes in class II division 1 patients treated with extra oral force and functional jaw orthopaedics, American Journal of Orthodontics, 52, 352–370.
17.
MelsonB. and EnmarkH. (1969) Effect of cervical anchorage studied by the implant method, Transactions of European Orthodontic Society, 435–437.
18.
MelsenB. (1978) Effects of cervical anchorage during and after treatment: an implant study, American Journal of Orthodontics, 73, 526–539.
19.
MerrifieldL. and CrossJ. (1970) Directional forces, American Journal of Orthodontics, 57, 435–464.
20.
MillsC. M., HolmanG. and GraberT. M. (1978) Heavy intermittent cervical traction in class II treatment. A longitudinal cephalometric assessment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 74, 361–379.
21.
PancherzH. (1976) Long term effects activator treatment, Odont. Revy, 27, Supplement 35.
22.
PoultonD. R. (1967) The influence of extra oral traction, American Journal of Orthodontics, 53, 8–19.
23.
ReeyR. W. and EastwoodA. (1978) The passive activator: Case selection, treatment response and corrective mechanics, American Journal of Orthodontics, 73, 378–409.
24.
RickettsR. M. (1960) The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development, Angle Orthodontist, 30, 103–134.
25.
RingenbergQ. M. and ButtsW. C. (1970) A controlled cephalometric evaluation of single arch cervical therapy, American Journal of Orthodontics, 57, 179–185.
26.
RiolaM. L., MoyersR. E., McNamaraJ. A. and HunterW. S. (1974) An atlas of cranitifacial growth, Centre for Human Growth and Development, Ann Arbor.
27.
SanduskyW. C. (1965) Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Kloehn type of cervical traction used as an auxiliary with the Edgewise mechanism following Tweed's principles for the correction of class II division I malocclusion, American Journal of Orthodontics, 51, 262–287.
28.
TanC. S. (1979) The effects of cervical traction in class II division I malocclusions, MSc Thesis, University of London.
29.
TrayfootJ. and RichardsonA. (1968) Angle class II division I malocclusions treated by the Andresen method, British Dental Journal, 124, 516–519.
30.
WeinbergerT. W. (1974) Extra oral traction and functional appliances. A cephalometric comparison, British Journal of Orthodontics, 1, 35–39.
31.
WieslanderL. (1974) The effect of force on craniofacial development, American Journal of Orthodontics, 65, 531–537.
32.
WieslanderL. and BuckD. L. (1974) Physiologic recovery after cervical traction therapy, American Journal of Orthodontics, 66, 294–301.
33.
WieslanderL. and LagerstromL. (1979) The effect of activator treatment on class II malocclusionsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 20–25.
34.
WoodsideD. G. (1974) The activator, In: Orthodontics in Daily Practice, J. A. SalzmannPhiladelphia, 34, 557–591.
35.
WormsF. W.IsaacsonR. J. and SpeidelT. M. (1973) A concept and classification of centre of rotation and extra oral force systems, Angle Orthodontist, 43, 384–401.
