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 *

418 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1452055)

  • 1. A comparison of Twin Block, Andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Trenouth MJ
    Funct Orthod; 1992; 9(4):26-31. PubMed ID: 1452055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children.
    Thiruvenkatachari B; Harrison JE; Worthington HV; O'Brien KD
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2013 Nov; (11):CD003452. PubMed ID: 24226169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Treating Class II patients with removable plates and functional orthopedic appliances-the importance of anterior tooth inclination and direction of growth on treatment outcome.
    Hönn M; Schneider C; Dietz K; Godt A; Göz G
    J Orofac Orthop; 2006 Jul; 67(4):272-88. PubMed ID: 16838095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study.
    Mahamad IK; Neela PK; Mascarenhas R; Husain A
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012; 23(3):49-58. PubMed ID: 23094559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Treatment effects of the R-appliance and twin block in Class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Jamilian A; Showkatbakhsh R; Amiri SS
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 20956385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An assessment of Andresen therapy on class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Calvert FJ
    Br J Orthod; 1982 Jul; 9(3):149-53. PubMed ID: 6954989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. One phase or two phase orthodontic treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion ?
    Veitz-Keenan A; Liu N
    Evid Based Dent; 2019 Sep; 20(3):72-73. PubMed ID: 31562403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance.
    Mills CM; McCulloch KJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jul; 118(1):24-33. PubMed ID: 10893470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile.
    Varlik SK; Gültan A; Tümer N
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Apr; 30(2):128-34. PubMed ID: 18281262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects.
    O'Brien K; Wright J; Conboy F; Sanjie Y; Mandall N; Chadwick S; Connolly I; Cook P; Birnie D; Hammond M; Harradine N; Lewis D; McDade C; Mitchell L; Murray A; O'Neill J; Read M; Robinson S; Roberts-Harry D; Sandler J; Shaw I
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Sep; 124(3):234-43; quiz 339. PubMed ID: 12970656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Skeletal and dental outcomes of a new magnetic functional appliance, the Sydney Magnoglide, in Class II correction.
    Phelan A; Tarraf NE; Taylor P; Hönscheid R; Drescher D; Baccetti T; Darendeliler MA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jun; 141(6):759-72. PubMed ID: 22640678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Effect of Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II and division I malocclusion: a cephalometric study in 12 patients].
    Luo Y; Fang G
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2005 Feb; 14(1):90-3. PubMed ID: 15747025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Treatment effects of a twin-force bite corrector versus an activator in comparison with an untreated Class II sample: a preliminary report.
    Dalci O; Altug AT; Memikoglu UT
    Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 24968645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.