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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12401049)

  • 1. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy.
    Patel HP; Moseley HC; Noar JH
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Oct; 72(5):410-7. PubMed ID: 12401049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Growth modulation using functional appliances--cephalometric predictors of successful response.
    Kumar SA; Shetty KS; Prakash AT
    Orthodontics (Chic.); 2013; 14(1):e50-9. PubMed ID: 23646338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
    Burhan AS; Nawaya FR
    Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Craniofacial parameters of Syrian children with β-thalassemia major.
    Takriti M; Dashash M
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 May; 2(2):135-43. PubMed ID: 25426607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effectiveness of twin blocks and extraoral maxillary splint (Thurow) appliances for the correction of Class II relationships.
    Fernandes ÁF; Brunharo IH; Quintão CC; Costa MG; de Oliveira-Costa MR
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(3):230-5. PubMed ID: 20877731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
    Sharma AK; Sachdev V; Singla A; Kirtaniya BC
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2012; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Treating Class II malocclusion in children. Vertical skeletal effects of high-pull or low-pull headgear during comprehensive orthodontic treatment and retention.
    Antonarakis GS; Kiliaridis S
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2015 May; 18(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 25545335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Determinants of successful treatment of bimaxillary protrusion: orthodontic treatment versus anterior segmental osteotomy.
    Baek SH; Kim BH
    J Craniofac Surg; 2005 Mar; 16(2):234-46. PubMed ID: 15750420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An esthetic treatment outcome of orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in class II treatment: a cephalometric study.
    Kabbur KJ; Hemanth M; Patil GS; Sathyadeep V; Shamnur N; Harieesha KB; Praveen GR
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Sep; 13(5):602-6. PubMed ID: 23250160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of the effects of fixed and removable functional appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures.
    Bilgiç F; Hamamci O; Başaran G
    Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov; 27(2):110-6. PubMed ID: 22372266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition.
    Croft RS; Buschang PH; English JD; Meyer R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Oct; 116(4):435-43. PubMed ID: 10511673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cephalometric study to test the reliability of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy indicators using the twin block appliance.
    Trivedi R; Bhattacharya A; Mehta F; Patel D; Parekh H; Gandhi V
    Prog Orthod; 2015 Feb; 16():3. PubMed ID: 25769138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Treatment effects produced by Fränkel appliance in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion.
    Rodrigues de Almeida M; Castanha Henriques JF; Rodrigues de Almeida R; Ursi W
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Oct; 72(5):418-25. PubMed ID: 12401050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
    Burkhardt DR; McNamara JA; Baccetti T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An analysis of the corrective contribution in activator treatment.
    Cozza P; De Toffol L; Iacopini L
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Dec; 74(6):741-8. PubMed ID: 15673134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Treatment effects produced by the Bionator appliance. Comparison with an untreated Class II sample.
    Almeida MR; Henriques JF; Almeida RR; Almeida-Pedrin RR; Ursi W
    Eur J Orthod; 2004 Feb; 26(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 14994884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Correlation of Dental and Skeletal Malocclusions in Sagittal Plane among Saudi Orthodontic Patients.
    Al-Hamlan N; Al-Eissa B; Al-Hiyasat AS; Albalawi FS; Ahmed AE
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 May; 16(5):353-9. PubMed ID: 26162253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects caused by herbst and mandibular protraction appliances in the treatment of mandibular Class II malocclusions.
    Alves PF; Oliveira AG
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(1):e1-19. PubMed ID: 19641760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Maintenance of a deep bite prior to surgical mandibular advancement.
    de Coul FO; Oosterkamp BC; Jansma J; Bierman MW; Pruim GJ; Sandham A
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):342-5. PubMed ID: 19737779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.