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 *

338 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11395699)

  • 1. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples.
    Parkin NA; McKeown HF; Sandler PJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jun; 119(6):572-7. PubMed ID: 11395699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes.
    Gill DS; Lee RT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):465-72; quiz 517. PubMed ID: 15821691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
    Thiruvenkatachari B; Sandler J; Murray A; Walsh T; O'Brien K
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Aug; 138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. PubMed ID: 20691354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
    Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances.
    Martins RP; da Rosa Martins JC; Martins LP; Buschang PH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 19061799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Two-phase treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion with the combination of the twin-block appliance and high-pull headgear.
    Lv Y; Yan B; Wang L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Aug; 142(2):246-55. PubMed ID: 22858335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
    Flores-Mir C; Barnett G; Higgins DW; Heo G; Major PW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Treatment of Class II, division 1, cases with a maxillary traction splint.
    Seçkin O; Surucu R
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Mar; 21(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 2374804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Guiding occlusal development with functional appliances.
    Nielsen IL
    Aust Orthod J; 1996 Oct; 14(3):133-42. PubMed ID: 9528411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes.
    Sharma AA; Lee RT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):473-82. PubMed ID: 15821692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. An evaluation of maxillary and mandibular rotational responses with the Clark twin block appliance.
    Lau EY; Sampson WJ; Townsend GC; Hughes T
    Aust Orthod J; 2009 May; 25(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 19634464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Transitional Twin Block.
    Broadbent JM
    Funct Orthod; 1997; 14(3):4-8, 10-6. PubMed ID: 9610291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
    Dolce C; McGorray SP; Brazeau L; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9. PubMed ID: 17920501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.