These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

54 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10431533)

  • 1. [Functional therapy of Class II Division 1. Comparison of three activators: Andresen, Fränkel and Teuscher].
    Bertelè G; Leoci T; Stella F; Pisano C
    Minerva Stomatol; 1999 Apr; 48(4):115-23. PubMed ID: 10431533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Evaluation of results in Class II: division 1 malocclusions by treated Frankel appliance].
    Yiğit MD; Akin SZ
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):215-25. PubMed ID: 2489152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Long-term comparison of treatment outcome and stability of Class II patients treated with functional appliances versus bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
    Berger JL; Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; George C; Kaczynski R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):451-64; quiz 516-7. PubMed ID: 15821690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
    Marşan G
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Treating Class II patients with removable plates and functional orthopedic appliances-the importance of anterior tooth inclination and direction of growth on treatment outcome.
    Hönn M; Schneider C; Dietz K; Godt A; Göz G
    J Orofac Orthop; 2006 Jul; 67(4):272-88. PubMed ID: 16838095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sagittal and vertical changes after treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion according to the Cetlin method.
    Ferro F; Monsurró A; Perillo L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):150-8. PubMed ID: 10935955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Functional appliance treatment assessed using the PAR index.
    Wijayaratne D; Harkness M; Herbison P
    Aust Orthod J; 2000 Nov; 16(3):118-26. PubMed ID: 12476494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects.
    Türkkahraman H; Sayin MO
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Feb; 28(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 16093256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical class II treatment.
    Shell TL; Woods MG
    Aust Orthod J; 2004 Nov; 20(2):51-63. PubMed ID: 16429875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance.
    Mills CM; McCulloch KJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jul; 118(1):24-33. PubMed ID: 10893470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.
    Haralabakis NB; Halazonetis DJ; Sifakakis IB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 12637902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
    Baccetti T; Franchi L; Toth LR; McNamara JA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10935956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment.
    Casutt C; Pancherz H; Gawora M; Ruf S
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Dec; 29(6):614-21. PubMed ID: 17878188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
    Jena AK; Duggal R; Parkash H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
    de Oliveira JN; Rodrigues de Almeida R; Rodrigues de Almeida M; de Oliveira JN
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jul; 132(1):54-62. PubMed ID: 17628251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the bionator.
    Ahn SJ; Kim JT; Nahm DS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jun; 119(6):578-86. PubMed ID: 11395700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study.
    Nelson B; Hansen K; Hägg U
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):142-9. PubMed ID: 10935954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. European Board of Orthodontics case report: severe skeletal discrepancy.
    Paduano S
    Prog Orthod; 2009; 10(1):92-101. PubMed ID: 19506749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients.
    LaHaye MB; Buschang PH; Alexander RG; Boley JC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Dec; 130(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 17169735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of the reciprocal mini-chin cup appliance.
    Aslan BI; Dinçer M
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Feb; 30(1):80-8. PubMed ID: 18276929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.