155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1291608)
21. Masticatory function and neurosensory disturbance after mandibular correction by bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a comparison between miniplate and bicortical screw rigid internal fixation.
Yamashita Y; Mizuashi K; Shigematsu M; Goto M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Feb; 36(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 17150332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis.
Oguz Y; Uckan S; Ozden AU; Uckan E; Eser A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):174-7. PubMed ID: 19615655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Preliminary investigation of the biomechanics of internal fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with miniplates using a newly designed in vitro testing model.
Armstrong JE; Lapointe HJ; Hogg NJ; Kwok AD
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2001 Feb; 59(2):191-5. PubMed ID: 11213988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Changes in the inferior alveolar nerve following sagittal split ramus osteotomy in monkeys: a comparison of monocortical and bicortical fixation.
Hu J; Zhao Q; Tang J; Zheng Z; Qi MC
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Jun; 45(4):265-71. PubMed ID: 17027127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Three-dimensional finite element analysis used to compare methods of fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: setback surgery-posterior loading.
Erkmen E; Simşek B; Yücel E; Kurt A
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Apr; 43(2):97-104. PubMed ID: 15749208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of five different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite elements analysis.
Sato FR; Asprino L; Noritomi PY; da Silva JV; de Moraes M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Aug; 41(8):934-41. PubMed ID: 22510341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The use of an intermaxillary fixation screw for mandibular setback surgery.
Ueki K; Marukawa K; Shimada M; Nakagawa K; Yamamoto E
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Aug; 65(8):1562-8. PubMed ID: 17656284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Experimental analysis of functional stability of sagittal split ramus osteotomies secured by miniplates and position screws.
Shetty V; Freymiller E; McBrearty D; Caputo AA
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1996 Nov; 54(11):1317-24; discussion 1324-6. PubMed ID: 8941183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison of screw placement patterns on the rigidity of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy: technical note.
Kim HC; Essaki S; Kameyama T
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 1995 Feb; 23(1):54-6. PubMed ID: 7699086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro strength analysis of sagittal split osteotomy fixation: noncompression monocortical plates versus bicortical position screws.
Anucul B; Waite PD; Lemons JE
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1992 Dec; 50(12):1295-9. PubMed ID: 1447609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of tensile strength of resorbable plating systems used in monocortical mandible angle osteotomy repair.
Jain SA; Simmons OP; Hanemann MS; Baratta RV; Guerra AB; Metzinger SE
Arch Facial Plast Surg; 2006; 8(6):390-5. PubMed ID: 17116786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Screw orientation and plate type (variable- vs. fixed-angle) effect strength of fixation for in vitro biomechanical testing of the Synthes CSLP.
Dipaola CP; Jacobson JA; Awad H; Conrad BP; Rechtine GR
Spine J; 2008; 8(5):717-22. PubMed ID: 17983846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Experimental spiral fractures. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of lag-screw fixation to plate fixation.
Cox LG; Dahners LE; Gilbert JA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1989 Jun; (243):189-94. PubMed ID: 2721062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Internal screw fixation: comparison of placement pattern and rigidity.
Foley WL; Frost DE; Paulin WB; Tucker MR
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1989 Jul; 47(7):720-3. PubMed ID: 2732831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of relapse in bilateral sagittal split osteotomies for mandibular advancement: rigid internal fixation (screws) versus inferior border wiring with anterior skeletal fixation.
Moenning JE; Bussard DA; Lapp TH; Garrison BT
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1990; 5(3):175-82. PubMed ID: 2098453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison between the rigidity of bicortical screws and a miniplate for fixation of a mandibular setback after a simulated bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.
Tharanon W
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1998 Sep; 56(9):1055-8. PubMed ID: 9734767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of three stable internal fixation techniques used in sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: a study in sheep mandibles.
Olivera LB; Sant' Ana E; Manzato AJ; Guerra FL; Arnett GW
J Appl Oral Sci; 2012; 20(4):419-26. PubMed ID: 23032203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Modification of the sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: mobilizing vertical osteotomy of the internal ramus segment.
Ricard D; Ferri J
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Aug; 67(8):1691-9. PubMed ID: 19615584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Which kind of miniplate to use in mandibular sagittal split osteotomy? An in vitro study.
Ribeiro-Junior PD; Magro-Filho O; Shastri KA; Papageorge MB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Nov; 41(11):1369-73. PubMed ID: 22658672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A comparative in vitro study on fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with Würzburg screws, Champy miniplates, and Biofix (biodegradable) rods.
Bouwman JP; Tuinzing DB; Kostense PJ
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1994 Feb; 23(1):46-8. PubMed ID: 8163861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
