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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12835431)

  • 1. The validity of computerized orthognathic predictions.
    Cousley RR; Grant E; Kindelan JD
    J Orthod; 2003 Jun; 30(2):149-54; discussion 128. PubMed ID: 12835431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The accuracy of preoperative orthognathic predictions.
    Cousley RR; Grant E
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2004 Apr; 42(2):96-104. PubMed ID: 15013540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Surgical prediction of skeletal and soft tissue changes in treatment of Class II.
    de Lira Ade L; de Moura WL; Artese F; Bittencourt MA; Nojima LI
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Apr; 41(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 23201327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. How predictable is orthognathic surgery?
    Eckhardt CE; Cunningham SJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2004 Jun; 26(3):303-9. PubMed ID: 15222716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of combined maxillary and mandibular repositioning and of soft tissue prediction in relation to maxillary antero-superior repositioning combined with mandibular set back A computerized cephalometric evaluation of the immediate postsurgical outcome using the TIOPS planning system.
    Donatsky O; Bjørn-Jørgensen J; Hermund NU; Nielsen H; Holmqvist-Larsen M; Nerder PH
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2009 Jul; 37(5):279-84. PubMed ID: 19188076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparison of postoperative stability of three rigid internal fixation techniques after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement.
    Sato FR; Asprino L; Fernandes Moreira RW; de Moraes M
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Jul; 42(5):e224-9. PubMed ID: 24103461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative study of skeletal stability between bicortical resorbable and titanium screw fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular prognathism.
    Paeng JY; Hong J; Kim CS; Kim MJ
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2012 Dec; 40(8):660-4. PubMed ID: 22209495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The accuracy of two-dimensional planning for routine orthognathic surgery.
    Rustemeyer J; Groddeck A; Zwerger S; Bremerich A
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Jun; 48(4):271-5. PubMed ID: 19632014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Surgical prediction of skeletal and soft tissue changes in Class III treatment.
    de Lira Ade L; de Moura WL; de Barros Vieira JM; Nojima MG; Nojima LI
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Apr; 70(4):e290-7. PubMed ID: 22449434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Long-term skeletal and profile stability after surgical-orthodontic treatment of Class II and Class III malocclusion.
    de Lir Ade L; de Moura WL; Oliveira Ruellas AC; Gomes Souza MM; Nojima LI
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Jun; 41(4):296-302. PubMed ID: 23196069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cephalometric evaluation of surgical mandibular advancement.
    Boeck EM; Kuramae M; Lunardi N; Santos-Pinto Ad; Mazzonetto R
    Braz Oral Res; 2010; 24(2):189-96. PubMed ID: 20658038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dental and skeletal changes associated with Class II surgical-orthodontic treatment.
    Potts B; Shanker S; Fields HW; Vig KW; Beck FM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 May; 135(5):566.e1-7; discussion 566-7. PubMed ID: 19409333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A cephalometric study of Class II malocclusions treated with mandibular surgery.
    Burden D; Johnston C; Kennedy D; Harradine N; Stevenson M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jan; 131(1):7.e1-8. PubMed ID: 17208097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Lateral cephalometry changes after SARPE.
    Parhiz A; Schepers S; Lambrichts I; Vrielinck L; Sun Y; Politis C
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Jul; 40(7):662-71. PubMed ID: 21489753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Computer prediction of hard tissue profiles in orthognathic surgery.
    Loh S; Yow M
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 2002; 17(4):342-7. PubMed ID: 12593006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Do patients treated with bimaxillary surgery have more stable condylar positions than those who have undergone single-jaw surgery?
    Kim YJ; Oh KM; Hong JS; Lee JH; Kim HM; Reyes M; Cevidanes LH; Park YH
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Sep; 70(9):2143-52. PubMed ID: 22115974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of a LeFort I maxillary osteotomy.
    Semaan S; Goonewardene MS
    Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):964-73. PubMed ID: 16448239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Stepwise advancement Herbst appliance versus mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Treatment effects and long-term stability of adult Class II patients.
    Chaiyongsirisern A; Rabie AB; Wong RW
    Angle Orthod; 2009 Nov; 79(6):1084-94. PubMed ID: 19852598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.