359 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11298316)
21. Craniofacial morphology in orthodontically treated patients of class III malocclusion with stable and unstable treatment outcomes.
Tahmina K; Tanaka E; Tanne K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jun; 117(6):681-90. PubMed ID: 10842111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Class II malocclusion with maxillary protrusion from the deciduous through the mixed dentition: a longitudinal study.
Antonini A; Marinelli A; Baroni G; Franchi L; Defraia E
Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):980-6. PubMed ID: 16448241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The effects of facial mask/bite block therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion.
Pavoni C; Mucedero M; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Polimeni A; Cozza P
Prog Orthod; 2009; 10(1):20-8. PubMed ID: 19506743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Changes in mandibular growth direction during and after cervical headgear treatment.
Kim KR; Muhl ZF
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 May; 119(5):522-30. PubMed ID: 11343025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in Turkish female Class III patients.
Marşan G; Cura N; Emekli U
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 37(1):8-17. PubMed ID: 18786833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies.
Yoshida I; Shoji T; Mizoguchi I
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):126-33. PubMed ID: 17218717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class III malocclusion.
Nartallo-Turley PE; Turley PK
Angle Orthod; 1998 Jun; 68(3):217-24. PubMed ID: 9622758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions.
Efstratiadis SS; Cohen G; Ghafari J
Angle Orthod; 1999 Jun; 69(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 10371427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effects of maxillary protraction with or without expansion on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects.
Mucedero M; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Cozza P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jun; 135(6):777-81. PubMed ID: 19524838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Late adult skeletofacial growth after adolescent Herbst therapy: a 32-year longitudinal follow-up study.
Pancherz H; Bjerklin K; Hashemi K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jan; 147(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 25533068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Centrographic analysis of 1-phase versus 2-phase treatment for Class II malocclusion.
Dolce C; Schader RE; McGorray SP; Wheeler TT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Aug; 128(2):195-200. PubMed ID: 16102404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The inadequacy of the Y-axis of growth (SNGn) for the vertical pattern assessment in patients with sagittal discrepancies.
Paranhos LR; Brando TM; Kaieda AK; Ramos AL; Torres FC
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2014 Mar; 15(2):169-73. PubMed ID: 25095838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Sagittal and vertical effects of transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) in three different malocclusion groups.
Maspero C; Galbiati G; Giannini L; Farronato G
Prog Orthod; 2015 Apr; 16():6. PubMed ID: 25907431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The influence of functional orthodontics and mandibular sagittal split advancement osteotomy on dental and skeletal variables--a comparative cephalometric study.
Lohrmann B; Schwestka-Polly R; Nägerl H; Ihlow D; Kubein-Meesenburg D
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Dec; 28(6):553-60. PubMed ID: 17142259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances.
Freitas MR; Lima DV; Freitas KM; Janson G; Henriques JF
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Oct; 30(5):477-82. PubMed ID: 18725383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cephalometric comparison of maxillary second molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in patients with Class II malocclusions.
Waters D; Harris EF
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Dec; 120(6):608-13; quiz 677. PubMed ID: 11742305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Third molar angulation during and after treatment of adolescent orthodontic patients.
Artun J; Thalib L; Little RM
Eur J Orthod; 2005 Dec; 27(6):590-6. PubMed ID: 16009666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The wits appraisal using three reference planes and its interaction with the ANB angle among a sub-set of Nigerians".
Ifesanya JU; Adeyemi AT; Otuyemi OD
Afr J Med Med Sci; 2014 Sep; 43(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 26223140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Long-term changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions following activator-headgear and fixed appliance treatment.
Hänggi MP; Teuscher UM; Roos M; Peltomäki TA
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):598-605. PubMed ID: 18974068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
