Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Case Reports in Dentistry
Volume 2013, Article ID 298671, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/298671
Case Report

The Hybrid Aesthetic Functional (HAF) Appliance: A Less Visible Proposal for Functional Orthodontics

Department of Orthodontics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1. Postbus 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands

Received 31 May 2013; Accepted 2 July 2013

Academic Editors: G. Gómez-Moreno, M. A. de A. M. Machado, and U. Zilberman

Copyright © 2013 Christos Livas. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. P. Ziuchkovski, H. W. Fields, W. M. Johnston, and D. T. Lindsey, “Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness,” The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 133, supplement 4, pp. S68–S78, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. H. G. Jeremiah, D. Bister, and J. T. Newton, “Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional study,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 476–482, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. K. Walton, H. W. Fields, W. M. Johnston, S. F. Rosenstiel, A. R. Firestone, and J. C. Christensen, “Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents,” The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 138, no. 6, pp. 698.e1–698.e12, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. L. Jerrold and N. Naghavi, “Evidence-based considerations for determining appointment intervals,” Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 379–383, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  5. B. Weltman, K. W. L. Vig, H. W. Fields, S. Shanker, and E. E. Kaizar, “Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review,” The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 137, no. 4, pp. 462–476, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. H. Pancherz, “The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation,” The American Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 104–113, 1982. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. I. Lund and P. J. Sandler, “The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study,” The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 104–110, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. K. O'Brien, J. Wright, F. Conboy et al., “Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial—part 1: dental and skeletal effects,” The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 234–243, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. M. C. Meikle, “Remodeling the dentofacial skeleton: the biological basis of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 12–24, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. H. G. Sergl and A. Zentner, “A comparative assessment of acceptance of different types of functional appliances,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 517–524, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. T. C. Schott and G. Göz, “Young patients' attitudes toward removable appliance wear times, wear-time instructions and electronic wear-time measurements—results of a questionnaire study,” Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 108–116, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus